Akin absurdity aside, rape never justifies abortion

[Lenny Bowers]

The criticisms of the recent absurd comments by Missouri
Republican Rep. Todd Akin, who at this writing is his party�s
nominee to take on incumbent Missouri Democratic Sen. Claire
McCaskill in November in a contest he had been expected to win,
have focused on his clearly erroneous understanding of the human
female anatomy. In a now infamous statement, in which he used
the bizarre and unheard-of phrase �legitimate rape,� the
congressman gave the impression that some rapes of women are not
mentally or seriously resisted. This is an antediluvian and
misogynistic myth for which there is no basis in fact and which
has been soundly and justly condemned.

Mr. Akin also stated that the female anatomy can resist unwanted
impregnation. This, too, is absurd, offensive and incorrect.
Medical science has established conclusively that women cannot
internally block an unwanted union of egg and sperm, no matter
the relationship between male and female. I think even
schoolchildren understand that.

What has gone unmentioned, however, in the cacophony of
condemnation by Republicans and Democrats, is the implication in
Mr. Akin�s comments that rape is not a moral justification for
abortion. In that, he is correct: It is not.

Abortion takes the life of innocent human beings who are the
most vulnerable in our society. Abortion is today the most
frequently performed medical procedure in the United States.
American physicians perform about two abortions every minute of
every hour of every day: about 1 million a year since 1973. In
my home state of New Jersey, abortion is permitted up to the
moment of birth, and the state will even pay for it if the
mother meets certain financial criteria.

How low have we sunk? What are the consequences of this mass
slaughter? How did we get here?

We got here because of the most reprehensible and
unconstitutional Supreme Court opinion in the modern era. In a
throwback to its infamous Dred Scott decision � in which a pre-
Civil War Supreme Court declared that blacks are not persons and
hence cannot claim the protections of the Constitution � the
court essentially said the same in Roe v. Wade of fetuses in the
womb.

Roe v. Wade has spawned more slaughter than all 20th-century
tyrants combined. The consequences of this slaughter are entire
lost generations of human beings who were denied by the law the
right to live. The economic consequences from which we all
suffer today � entitlements too costly to afford and too few
wage earners to pay for them � are directly attributable to the
absence of population growth.

I am not arguing in favor of entitlements. The Constitution does
not authorize the federal government to provide them. But when
FDR and LBJ concocted their entitlement schemes in order to
build permanent dependence on the Democratic party, they
understood population growth. Their understanding, too, was
slaughtered by abortion. A society that prefers death to life
not only cannot prosper; it cannot survive. Soon 40 percent of
federal tax revenues will be dedicated to interest on the
federal debt, and most of that borrowing has been to pay for
entitlements. We are headed for a cliff.

So are babies in the womb. But isn�t a baby in a womb a person?
Of course a baby in a womb is a person. A baby is produced by
the physical interaction of two human parents, and every unborn
baby possesses a fully actualizable human genome: all the
material necessary to grow to adulthood and to exist
independently outside the womb.

What about rape? Rape is among the more horrific violations of
human dignity imaginable. It is a crime committed by the male,
not the female � and certainly not by the child it might
produce. When rape results in pregnancy, the baby has the same
right to life as any child born by mutually loving parents. Only
the Nazis would execute a child for the crimes of his or her
father.

Every abortion ends the life of an innocent unborn human being.
When politicians in both parties claim to be pro-life but favor
abortions because of the criminal behavior of the father, as in
rape or incest, they are politically rejecting that hard truth.
What other violations of the natural law will they condone for
political expedience?

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of
New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel.
He is the author of �It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the
Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom� (Thomas
Nelson, 2011).

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/22/akin-absurdity-
aside-rape-never-justifies-abortion/

[raven1]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 18:42:52 +0200, "Lenny Bowers"
<lbo...@invalid.org> wrote:

>Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of
>New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel.

And he will have a say in the matter when he has a uterus.

[Too_Many_Tools]

Another rape monger...on Faux News.

Why am I not surprised?

TMT

[Too_Many_Tools]

On Aug 23, 12:05 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 18:42:52 +0200, "Lenny Bowers"
>

> <lbow...@invalid.org> wrote:
> >Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of
> >New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel.
>
> And he will have a say in the matter when he has a uterus.

Well with conservatives one never knows considering the number of
crossdressers that are Republicans.

TMT

[elizabeth]

LennyWennyboBenny, dearie, only a rapist feels that a woman must
gestate a rapist's baby, because forced gestation is just an extreme
form of rape.

I am very sorry that your mother didn't abort.

[Father Haskell]

On Aug 23, 2:28 pm, elizabeth <elizabethfran...@gmail.com> wrote:
> LennyWennyboBenny, dearie, only a rapist feels that a woman must
> gestate a rapist's baby, because forced gestation is just an extreme
> form of rape.

It's extended, slow motion rape, occurring over the
next 9 months.

[Father Haskell]

On Aug 23, 12:42 pm, "Lenny Bowers" <lbow...@invalid.org> wrote:
>
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/22/akin-absurdity-
> aside-rape-never-justifies-abortion/

WT is a moonie rag.

How white of you to agree to adopt the child.

[Jahnu]

Yes, the universe shows many examples of complexity and, indeed, may
look designed to the naive, but no evidence for a designer of a universe
has ever appeared. The only intellegent designers we know of come in the
form of earthly based DNA life-forms.

[Joe Dixon]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 18:42:52 +0200, "Lenny Bowers" <lbo...@invalid.org>
wrote:

> What has gone unmentioned, however, in the cacophony of
> condemnation by Republicans and Democrats, is the implication in

> Mr. Akin? comments that rape is not a moral justification for

> abortion. In that, he is correct: It is not.

If a woman doesn't want the fetus for any reason that is sufficient
justification for her to abort the fetus.

[Gunner]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 13:50:36 -0700, Joe Dixon <J.D...@spam.invalid>
wrote:

Then if she doesnt want the child up to the age of adulthood...she is
allowed to kill the kid.

Right?

Gunner

One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not
agree that "violence begets violence." I told him that it is my
earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure
- and in some cases I have - that any man who offers violence to his
fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy.

- Jeff Cooper

[Gunner]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 13:50:36 -0700, Joe Dixon <J.D...@spam.invalid>
wrote:

http://www.redstate.com/aarongardner/2012/08/20/rape-abortion-and-the-moral-high-ground/

Rape, Abortion, and the Moral High Ground

Posted by Aaron Gardner (Diary)

Monday, August 20th at 6:00PM EDT

Recently, a long term friend and I got into a discussion about
abortion over a few glasses of scotch. The debate devolved quickly
into an outright fight. I held firm in the position that abortion was
either a form of murder, and was therefore wrong in all instances
where the physical life of the mother wasn’t threatened, or it wasn’t.
The friend insisted that there must be exceptions in instances of rape
or incest.

What really angered me in this exchange was the faultiness of his
logic and his insistence that I was in error because I was allowing my
faith to dictate my political opinion on the matter. First, the logic
he employed in his defense was that I could never understand the
circumstances of a woman impregnated due to rape. I reject this flat
out because it assumes that I am incapable of being empathetic to the
situation unless I allow for the premeditated murder of an innocent.
His counter to my claim the child was innocent was to claim the child
is, by nature of the act in which it was conceived, a “bad seed”, a
claim I find highly ironic coming from someone who rejects the moral
arguments against abortion.

I attempted to demonstrate the faultiness of his argument by arguing
that he, as a white man, could never understand the plight of a black
man, or an illegal alien, and therefore he should never argue against
reparations or amnesty. Of course it would be absurd, and harmful to
society in the whole, to pair down what issues one may opine on based
on gender, race, or ethnicity, yet when it comes to abortion many have
no problem cozying up to this illogical and balkanizing form of
argumentation.

Even though I know that these are direct parallels to his logic, he
refused to acknowledge the fact and attempted to paint me as being
nothing but a Jesus zombie, simply parroting dogma rather than having
struggled with the legal and logical aspects of abortion in America.

When he realized that I would not relent, he went into a long diatribe
about how I had changed since I started attending church regularly
again, something I have been doing for all but two years of the time
he has known me. The end of the evening came when I finally said to
him that if he is so offended by my faith, maybe we should cease being
friends.

I am sharing this experience in light of the recent gaffe by Rep. Akin
because I believe his gaffe is a byproduct of an environment in
politics that encourages us to be offended by, if not outright hostile
to, positions based on Judeo-Christian morality.

Social Conservatives are often encouraged to soften their tones, to
refer to objective science when arguing issues of morality, as a way
to skirt past the objections of those who get an icky feeling in there
stomach when God enters the discussion. Many Christians are familiar
with that icky feeling, typically we refer to it as the Holy Spirit
convicting us, but I digress.

As a movement, we do ourselves a disservice when we reach for
quasi-scientific arguments in favor of our moral positions. The honest
truth is that we fail because we are scared to stand on the principle
itself and open ourselves to attacks and gaffes as Akin did.

We allow people like President Obama to capture the moral high ground
when he says “Rape is rape.”

“Rape is rape, and the idea that we should be parsing and qualifying
and slicing up what types of rape we’re talking about doesn’t make
sense to the American people, and certainly doesn’t make sense to me.”

I appreciate the clarity that Obama provides here, and I say that only
half mockingly. You see, I also believe murder is murder, and parsing
and qualifying and slicing up what types of murder we are talking
about doesn’t make sense to the American people, and certainly doesn’t
make sense to me. The left and President Obama parse, qualify, and
slice up what types of abortions are murder and which ones are
legitimate ways of relieving a “burden” with nary a peep coming from
the media.

And they get away with this largely because we are told not to stand
up for our own moral principles. We are condemned by our opponents and
friends alike when we mention that there are areas that are strictly
black and white, allowing for no grey.

This shouldn’t be taken as an excuse to act like a cold hearted
hardliner either. Many times there is an opportunity to make an
emotional connection while making a logical argument. The case of
abortions due to rape is an example where the emotional connection
would prove fruitful.

To that end, I will go back to the story I shared at the beginning of
this post.

A few days after the argument with my friend I went to talk to my
mother about the entire incident. My mother is politically active and
also has a lifetime of experience as a nurse. Unbeknownst to me, in my
almost 36 years of existence, my mother was the product of a rape.

My mother has been responsible for saving countless number of lives in
her 30 year career as a nurse. She worked mid shifts in the Maricopa
County Hospital Emergency Room. She worked in the NICU in the same
hospital. She worked as a crew member nurse on a flight for life
helicopter at various points in her career. Today she works as a
hospice nurse comforting those waiting on the inevitable.

This woman, my mother, has dedicated her entire adult life to saving
others. To my friend, she was a “bad seed” whose life should have been
snuffed out before even beginning, all because her father was
incapable of controlling the lust that lived within him.

I am sure my friend never even considered the possible lives that
would be lost if my mother had been aborted. In fact, he couldn’t have
because he didn’t know my mother was the product of a rape.

God has a funny way of reaffirming our faith. In my case he used a
friend accusing me of being controlled by my faith to show me how I
have grown in my faith and further caused information to be revealed
to me that reaffirmed why I am pro-life.

The bottom line is this: If Barack Obama, Claire McCaskill, and the
majority of the Democratic Party had their druthers, my mother would
have been killed in the womb. The people my mother saved would have
missed out on the care she provided. If exceptions for rape would have
been in place in 1955, I may have never existed.

Never the less, President Obama will be praised for wanting my mother
dead, all because we have created an environment where morality isn’t
in itself worthy of being defended. Not to mention life.

[Dakota]

On 8/23/2012 11:42 AM, Lenny Bowers wrote:
> The criticisms of the recent absurd comments by Missouri

> Republican Rep. Todd Akin, who at this writing is his party�s

> nominee to take on incumbent Missouri Democratic Sen. Claire
> McCaskill in November in a contest he had been expected to win,
> have focused on his clearly erroneous understanding of the human
> female anatomy. In a now infamous statement, in which he used

> the bizarre and unheard-of phrase �legitimate rape,� the

> congressman gave the impression that some rapes of women are not
> mentally or seriously resisted. This is an antediluvian and
> misogynistic myth for which there is no basis in fact and which
> has been soundly and justly condemned.
>
> Mr. Akin also stated that the female anatomy can resist unwanted
> impregnation. This, too, is absurd, offensive and incorrect.
> Medical science has established conclusively that women cannot
> internally block an unwanted union of egg and sperm, no matter
> the relationship between male and female. I think even
> schoolchildren understand that.
>
> What has gone unmentioned, however, in the cacophony of
> condemnation by Republicans and Democrats, is the implication in

> Mr. Akin�s comments that rape is not a moral justification for

> abortion. In that, he is correct: It is not.
>
> Abortion takes the life of innocent human beings who are the
> most vulnerable in our society. Abortion is today the most
> frequently performed medical procedure in the United States.
> American physicians perform about two abortions every minute of
> every hour of every day: about 1 million a year since 1973. In
> my home state of New Jersey, abortion is permitted up to the
> moment of birth, and the state will even pay for it if the
> mother meets certain financial criteria.
>
> How low have we sunk? What are the consequences of this mass
> slaughter? How did we get here?
>
> We got here because of the most reprehensible and
> unconstitutional Supreme Court opinion in the modern era. In a

> throwback to its infamous Dred Scott decision � in which a pre-

> Civil War Supreme Court declared that blacks are not persons and

> hence cannot claim the protections of the Constitution � the

> court essentially said the same in Roe v. Wade of fetuses in the
> womb.
>
> Roe v. Wade has spawned more slaughter than all 20th-century
> tyrants combined. The consequences of this slaughter are entire
> lost generations of human beings who were denied by the law the
> right to live. The economic consequences from which we all

> suffer today � entitlements too costly to afford and too few
> wage earners to pay for them � are directly attributable to the

> absence of population growth.
>
> I am not arguing in favor of entitlements. The Constitution does
> not authorize the federal government to provide them. But when
> FDR and LBJ concocted their entitlement schemes in order to
> build permanent dependence on the Democratic party, they
> understood population growth. Their understanding, too, was
> slaughtered by abortion. A society that prefers death to life
> not only cannot prosper; it cannot survive. Soon 40 percent of
> federal tax revenues will be dedicated to interest on the
> federal debt, and most of that borrowing has been to pay for
> entitlements. We are headed for a cliff.
>

> So are babies in the womb. But isn�t a baby in a womb a person?

> Of course a baby in a womb is a person. A baby is produced by
> the physical interaction of two human parents, and every unborn
> baby possesses a fully actualizable human genome: all the
> material necessary to grow to adulthood and to exist
> independently outside the womb.
>
> What about rape? Rape is among the more horrific violations of
> human dignity imaginable. It is a crime committed by the male,

> not the female � and certainly not by the child it might

> produce. When rape results in pregnancy, the baby has the same
> right to life as any child born by mutually loving parents. Only
> the Nazis would execute a child for the crimes of his or her
> father.
>
> Every abortion ends the life of an innocent unborn human being.
> When politicians in both parties claim to be pro-life but favor
> abortions because of the criminal behavior of the father, as in
> rape or incest, they are politically rejecting that hard truth.
> What other violations of the natural law will they condone for
> political expedience?
>
> Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of
> New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel.

> He is the author of �It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the
> Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom� (Thomas

> Nelson, 2011).
>
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/22/akin-absurdity-
> aside-rape-never-justifies-abortion/
>

The Moony Times? Andy Napolitano? You need to get out into the real world.

[Dakota]

The only politician with the right to make a decision regarding
abortion is a pregnant politician deciding about her own condition.

[Don Kresch]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 14:52:52 -0700, Gunner <Gunner Asch> scrawled in
blood:

>On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 13:50:36 -0700, Joe Dixon <J.D...@spam.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 18:42:52 +0200, "Lenny Bowers" <lbo...@invalid.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> What has gone unmentioned, however, in the cacophony of
>>> condemnation by Republicans and Democrats, is the implication in
>>> Mr. Akin? comments that rape is not a moral justification for
>>> abortion. In that, he is correct: It is not.
>>
>>If a woman doesn't want the fetus for any reason that is sufficient
>>justification for her to abort the fetus.
>
>Then if she doesnt want the child up to the age of adulthood...she is
>allowed to kill the kid.

Could you try an analogy that isn't false?


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.

[Don Kresch]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 15:00:55 -0700, Gunner <Gunner Asch> scrawled in
blood:

>On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 13:50:36 -0700, Joe Dixon <J.D...@spam.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 18:42:52 +0200, "Lenny Bowers" <lbo...@invalid.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> What has gone unmentioned, however, in the cacophony of
>>> condemnation by Republicans and Democrats, is the implication in
>>> Mr. Akin? comments that rape is not a moral justification for
>>> abortion. In that, he is correct: It is not.
>>
>>If a woman doesn't want the fetus for any reason that is sufficient
>>justification for her to abort the fetus.
>
>http://www.redstate.com/aarongardner/2012/08/20/rape-abortion-and-the-moral-high-ground/

http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp

"The proper groundwork for analysis of abortion is in every man’s
absolute right of self-ownership. This implies immediately that every
woman has the absolute right to her own body, that she has absolute
dominion over her body and everything within it. This includes the
fetus. Most fetuses are in the mother’s womb because the mother
consents to this situation, but the fetus is there by the mother’s
freely-granted consent. But should the mother decide that she does not
want the fetus there any longer, then the fetus becomes a parasitic
“invader” of her person, and the mother has the perfect right to expel
this invader from her domain. Abortion should be looked upon, not as
“murder” of a living person, but as the expulsion of an unwanted
invader from the mother’s body. Any laws restricting or prohibiting
abortion are therefore invasions of the rights of mothers.

It has been objected that since the mother originally consented
to the conception, the mother has therefore “contracted” its status
with the fetus, and may not “violate” that “contract” by having an
abortion. There are many problems with this doctrine, however. In the
first place, as we shall see further below, a mere promise is not an
enforceable contract: contracts are only properly enforceable if their
violation involves implicit theft, and clearly no such consideration
can apply here. Secondly, there is obviously no “contract” here, since
the fetus (fertilized ovum?) can hardly be considered a voluntarily
and consciously contracting entity. And thirdly as we have seen above,
a crucial point in libertarian theory is the inalienability of the
will, and therefore the impermissibility of enforcing voluntary slave
contracts. Even if this had been a “contract,” then, it could not be
enforced because a mother’s will is inalienable, and she cannot
legitimately be enslaved into carrying and having a baby against her
will.

Another argument of the anti-abortionists is that the fetus is a
living human being, and is therefore entitled to all of the rights of
human beings. Very good; let us concede, for purposes of the
discussion, that fetuses are human beings—or, more broadly, potential
human beings—and are therefore entitled to full human rights. But what
humans, we may ask, have the right to be coercive parasites within the
body of an unwilling human host? Clearly no born humans have such a
right, and therefore, a fortiori, the fetus can have no such right
either.

The anti-abortionists generally couch the preceding argument in
terms of the fetus’s, as well as the born human’s, “right to life.” We
have not used this concept hi this volume because of its ambiguity,
and because any proper rights implied by its advocates are included in
the concept of the “right to self-ownership”—the right to have one’s
person free from aggression. Even Professor Judith Thomson, who, in
her discussion of the abortion question, attempts inconsistently to
retain the concept of “right to life” along with the right to own
one’s own body, lucidly demonstrates the pitfalls and errors of the
“right to life” doctrine:

In some views, having a right to life includes having a right to be
given at least the bare minimum one needs for continued life. But
suppose that what in fact is the bare minimum a man needs for
continued life is something he has no right at all to be given? If I
am sick unto death, and the only thing that will save my life is the
touch of Henry Fonda’s cool hand on my fevered brow, then all the
same, I have no right to be given the touch of Henry Fonda’s cool hand
on my fevered brow. It would be frightfully nice of him to fly in from
the West Coast to provide it. . . . But I have no right at all against
anybody that he should do this for me.

In short, it is impermissible to interpret the term “right to
life,” to give one an enforceable claim to the action of someone else
to sustain that life. In our terminology, such a claim would be an
impermissible violation of the other person’s right of self-ownership.
Or, as Professor Thomson cogently puts it, “having a right to life
does not guarantee having either a right to be given the use of or a
right to be allowed continued use of another person’s body—even if one
needs it for life itself.”"

[kni...@baawa.com]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 18:42:52 +0200, "Lenny Bowers"
<lbo...@invalid.org> wrote:

>. When rape results in pregnancy, the baby has the same
>right to life as any child born by mutually loving parents. Only
>the Nazis would execute a child for the crimes of his or her
>father.

So you're saying a woman (isn't it great that religions get to
dictate reproductive rights to women...) has to have a child conceived
in the worst possible manner, raise the kid and then after the rapist
gets out of jail, he'll sue for join custody and then this piece of
shit is in her life forever.

Of course, you're making the false claim that a zygote is a human
being. A poor little innocent 'baby'. Aaaahhhh.. so cute.....

BTW, human females naturally abort fetuses every day. It's called
miscarriage.


"There are about 4.4 million confirmed pregnancies in the U.S. every
year.


900,000 to 1 million of those end in pregnancy losses EVERY
year.


More than 500,000 pregnancies each year end in miscarriage
(occurring during the first 20 weeks).


Approximately 26,000 end in stillbirth(considered stillbirth
after 20 weeks)


Approximately 19,000 end in infant death during the first month.


Approximately 39,000 end in infant death during the first year.


Approximately 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage; some
estimates are as high as 1 in 3. If you include loss that occurs
before a positive pregnancy test, some estimate that 40% of all
conceptions result in loss.


Approximately 75% of all miscarriages occur in the first
trimester.


An estimated 80% of all miscarriages are single miscarriages.
The vast majority of women suffering one miscarriage can expect to
have a normal pregnancy next time.


An estimated 19% of the adult population has experienced the
death of a child (this includes miscarriages through adult-aged
children)."

source http://www.hopexchange.com/Statistics.htm

Looks like god doesn't give a shit about unborn 'babies'.

Warlord Steve
BAAWA

[Mike Painter]

On 8/23/2012 9:42 AM, Lenny Bowers wrote:
> So are babies in the womb. But isn�t a baby in a womb a person?

No, and why do so many of you defenders of the faith steal the work of
others?

[Gunner]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 19:01:58 -0500, Don Kresch
<spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:

>On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 14:52:52 -0700, Gunner <Gunner Asch> scrawled in
>blood:
>
>>On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 13:50:36 -0700, Joe Dixon <J.D...@spam.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 18:42:52 +0200, "Lenny Bowers" <lbo...@invalid.org>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> What has gone unmentioned, however, in the cacophony of
>>>> condemnation by Republicans and Democrats, is the implication in
>>>> Mr. Akin? comments that rape is not a moral justification for
>>>> abortion. In that, he is correct: It is not.
>>>
>>>If a woman doesn't want the fetus for any reason that is sufficient
>>>justification for her to abort the fetus.
>>
>>Then if she doesnt want the child up to the age of adulthood...she is
>>allowed to kill the kid.
>
> Could you try an analogy that isn't false?

Make up your mind..she can either kill her kid or not.

Gunner

>
>
>Don
>aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
>Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.

[Gunner]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 19:04:17 -0500, Don Kresch
<spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:

>>http://www.redstate.com/aarongardner/2012/08/20/rape-abortion-and-the-moral-high-ground/
>
> http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp
>
>"The proper groundwork for analysis of abortion is in every man�s
>absolute right of self-ownership. This implies immediately that every
>woman has the absolute right to her own body, that she has absolute
>dominion over her body and everything within it. This includes the
>fetus.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fetus

fe�tus (fts)
n. pl. fe�tus�es
1. The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic
structural resemblance to the adult animal.
2. In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after
conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier
embryo.
[Middle English, from Latin ftus, offspring; see dh(i)- in
Indo-European roots.]

The American Heritage� Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition copyright �2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
fetus, foetus [?fi?t?s]
n pl -tuses
(Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) the embryo of a mammal
in the later stages of development, when it shows all the main
recognizable features of the mature animal, esp a human embryo from
the end of the second month of pregnancy until birth Compare embryo
[2]
[from Latin: offspring, brood]

Collins English Dictionary � Complete and Unabridged � HarperCollins
Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
fetus (fts)
The unborn offspring of a mammal at the later stages of its
development, especially a human from eight weeks after fertilization
to its birth. In a fetus, all major body organs are present.
fetal adjective

The American Heritage� Science Dictionary Copyright � 2005 by Houghton
Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights
reserved.
fetus - A human embryo starts to be called a fetus at nine weeks.
See also related terms for months.
**

Trying to redefine it as something besides a very young human child is
simply gut level Leftwing buffoonery.

Gunner

[Yap]

On Aug 24, 5:52 am, Gunner <Gunner Asch> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 13:50:36 -0700, Joe Dixon <J.Di...@spam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 18:42:52 +0200, "Lenny Bowers" <lbow...@invalid.org>

> >wrote:
>
> >> What has gone unmentioned, however, in the cacophony of
> >> condemnation by Republicans and Democrats, is the implication in
> >> Mr. Akin? comments that rape is not a moral justification for
> >> abortion. In that, he is correct: It is not.
>
> >If a woman doesn't want the fetus for any reason that is sufficient
> >justification for her to abort the fetus.
>
> Then if she doesnt want the child up to the age of adulthood...she is
> allowed to kill the kid.

Now you are trying to twist the subject?
Quite a genius.......

>
>  Right?

You are an idiot who tries not to use common sense.

[Olrik]

Le 2012-08-23 17:52, Gunner a �crit :

> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 13:50:36 -0700, Joe Dixon <J.D...@spam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 18:42:52 +0200, "Lenny Bowers" <lbo...@invalid.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> What has gone unmentioned, however, in the cacophony of
>>> condemnation by Republicans and Democrats, is the implication in
>>> Mr. Akin? comments that rape is not a moral justification for
>>> abortion. In that, he is correct: It is not.
>>
>> If a woman doesn't want the fetus for any reason that is sufficient
>> justification for her to abort the fetus.
>
> Then if she doesnt want the child up to the age of adulthood...she is
> allowed to kill the kid.

There's no �kid� involved. And you know it.

[Gunner]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 20:20:57 -0700 (PDT), Yap <hhya...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Aug 24, 5:52 am, Gunner <Gunner Asch> wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 13:50:36 -0700, Joe Dixon <J.Di...@spam.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 18:42:52 +0200, "Lenny Bowers" <lbow...@invalid.org>
>> >wrote:
>>
>> >> What has gone unmentioned, however, in the cacophony of
>> >> condemnation by Republicans and Democrats, is the implication in
>> >> Mr. Akin? comments that rape is not a moral justification for
>> >> abortion. In that, he is correct: It is not.
>>
>> >If a woman doesn't want the fetus for any reason that is sufficient
>> >justification for her to abort the fetus.
>>
>> Then if she doesnt want the child up to the age of adulthood...she is
>> allowed to kill the kid.
>
>Now you are trying to twist the subject?
>Quite a genius.......

Twist the subject? Odd..I only added clarification.

Quite an ignoramus you turned out to be.

>
>>
>>  Right?
>
>You are an idiot who tries not to use common sense.

So you are unwilling to respond to the clarification? And must attack
the poster rather than addressing the subject matter?

You vote Democrat...dont you?

Gunner

[Yap]

On Aug 24, 2:06 pm, Gunner <Gunner Asch> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 20:20:57 -0700 (PDT), Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Aug 24, 5:52 am, Gunner <Gunner Asch> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 13:50:36 -0700, Joe Dixon <J.Di...@spam.invalid>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 18:42:52 +0200, "Lenny Bowers" <lbow...@invalid.org>
> >> >wrote:
>
> >> >> What has gone unmentioned, however, in the cacophony of
> >> >> condemnation by Republicans and Democrats, is the implication in
> >> >> Mr. Akin? comments that rape is not a moral justification for
> >> >> abortion. In that, he is correct: It is not.
>
> >> >If a woman doesn't want the fetus for any reason that is sufficient
> >> >justification for her to abort the fetus.
>
> >> Then if she doesnt want the child up to the age of adulthood...she is
> >> allowed to kill the kid.
>
> >Now you are trying to twist the subject?
> >Quite a genius.......
>
> Twist the subject?  Odd..I only added clarification.

People here are talking about fetus while you upgrade it to a child,
isn't it twisting the subject ?

>
> Quite an ignoramus you turned out to be.

We are laughing at your ignoramus.

>
>
>
> >>  Right?
>
> >You are an idiot who tries not to use common sense.
>
> So you are unwilling to respond to the clarification?  And must attack
> the poster rather than addressing the subject matter?

I am not on your new subject at all.
Any way, the killing of a child is criminal, but seems to have been
encouraged by your buybull?

>
> You vote Democrat...dont you?

Americans will always vote with their sense and of course sometimes
emotion, as shown in their choice of retard loony Bush.

[Virgil]

In article
<f61294a0-2771-4aec...@e14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:

`
> Liarboi Broiljab soke at the Ohio State student union Wednesday where he
> repeatedly misspronounced the word
> Ohio. Fortunately for the negro, Liarboi Broiljab, no one
> will ever see his real school transcripts or actual birth certificate.
> Is Liarboi Broiljab a retard as well as QUEER?
--

[Dakota]

Gunner's fortunate to not have met Jeff Cooper. Cooper would have
slapped him silly for being such a loser.

[Gunner]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 23:44:13 -0700 (PDT), Yap <hhya...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>>

>> >Now you are trying to twist the subject?
>> >Quite a genius.......
>>
>> Twist the subject?  Odd..I only added clarification.
>
>People here are talking about fetus while you upgrade it to a child,
>isn't it twisting the subject ?

Not at all. A Fetus IS a child. As the definitions I supplied
indicated.

Your attempt to define (along with that of your peers...<spit>) what a
fetus is..is indeed noted with contempt.

>
>>
>> Quite an ignoramus you turned out to be.
>
>We are laughing at your ignoramus.

We? You have a mouse in your pocket? Or is this the "royal we" that
those that believe themselves to be royalty, use?

>
>>
>>
>>
>> >>  Right?
>>
>> >You are an idiot who tries not to use common sense.
>>
>> So you are unwilling to respond to the clarification?  And must attack
>> the poster rather than addressing the subject matter?
>
>I am not on your new subject at all.
>Any way, the killing of a child is criminal, but seems to have been
>encouraged by your buybull?

My bullybull? So if the killing of a child is criminal, why do you
support the murder of a fetus? The difference between a fetus and a
child..is the length of the birth canal. Period.

>
>>
>> You vote Democrat...dont you?
>
>Americans will always vote with their sense and of course sometimes
>emotion, as shown in their choice of retard loony Bush.

Of course Americans will vote with their senses, emotions..and brains.
Unfortunately far too many of them voted with their emotions and
nothing else during the last election. Hence we have the Marxist in
Chief and his minions currently enjoying their one term stay in the
Whitehouse.

I take it you are not an American? Which nation are you a citizen of,
that enables you to judge both Americans and the reasons behind
American law? You arent a Canadian...are you?

Say..hows that Canadian Gun Registration working out for you?

[Dino]

On Aug 24, 2:44 am, Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 24, 2:06 pm, Gunner <Gunner Asch> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 20:20:57 -0700 (PDT), Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >On Aug 24, 5:52 am, Gunner <Gunner Asch> wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 13:50:36 -0700, Joe Dixon <J.Di...@spam.invalid>
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >> >On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 18:42:52 +0200, "Lenny Bowers" <lbow...@invalid.org>
> > >> >wrote:
>
> > >> >> What has gone unmentioned, however, in the cacophony of
> > >> >> condemnation by Republicans and Democrats, is the implication in
> > >> >> Mr. Akin? comments that rape is not a moral justification for
> > >> >> abortion. In that, he is correct: It is not.
>
> > >> >If a woman doesn't want the fetus for any reason that is sufficient
> > >> >justification for her to abort the fetus.
>
> > >> Then if she doesnt want the child up to the age of adulthood...she is
> > >> allowed to kill the kid.
>
> > >Now you are trying to twist the subject?
> > >Quite a genius.......
>
> > Twist the subject?  Odd..I only added clarification.
>
> People here are talking about fetus while you upgrade it to a child,
> isn't it twisting the subject ?

Most of us know how important terms are to you and others within your
ilk.
You have to use terms because it masks the truth. Kind of like the
ostrich
burying his head in the sand. It "sounds" better to say fetus.

What ever makes you sleep at night I guess.

>
>
>
> > Quite an ignoramus you turned out to be.
>
> We are laughing at your ignoramus.
>
>
>
> > >>  Right?
>
> > >You are an idiot who tries not to use common sense.
>
> > So you are unwilling to respond to the clarification?  And must attack
> > the poster rather than addressing the subject matter?
>
> I am not on your new subject at all.
> Any way, the killing of a child is criminal, but seems to have been
> encouraged by your buybull?
>
>
>
> > You vote Democrat...dont you?
>
> Americans will always vote with their sense

Stop...that's not true at all.

and of course sometimes
> emotion, as shown in their choice of retard loony Bush.

So as long as it makes "sense" to YOU...then it's right.

[Dino]

On Aug 23, 1:05 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 18:42:52 +0200, "Lenny Bowers"
>
> <lbow...@invalid.org> wrote:

> >Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of
> >New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel.
>

> And he will have a say in the matter when he has a uterus.

Odd...he doesn't have a uterus and yet...he has his say. Go figure.

[W.T.S.]

In article <tb6e381t6rnacg8n7...@4ax.com>, Gunner says...

> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 20:20:57 -0700 (PDT), Yap <hhya...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Aug 24, 5:52 am, Gunner <Gunner Asch> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 13:50:36 -0700, Joe Dixon <J.Di...@spam.invalid>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 18:42:52 +0200, "Lenny Bowers" <lbow...@invalid.org>
> >> >wrote:
> >>
> >> >> What has gone unmentioned, however, in the cacophony of
> >> >> condemnation by Republicans and Democrats, is the implication in
> >> >> Mr. Akin? comments that rape is not a moral justification for

> >> >> abortion. In that, he is wrong: Abortion is always justified.

> >>
> >> >If a woman doesn't want the fetus for any reason that is sufficient
> >> >justification for her to abort the fetus.
> >>
> >> Then if she doesnt want the child up to the age of adulthood...she is
> >> allowed to kill the kid.

No, life begins at birth. That's why it's so important to abort fetus
filth before it can become child filth.

> >
> >Now you are trying to twist the subject?
> >Quite a genius.......
>

> Twist the subject? I only tried to confuse the issue by comparing a
> fetus with a born child, which isn't the same.
>
> Quite an ignoramus I turned out to be.

> >
> >>  Right?
> >
> >You are an idiot who tries not to use common sense.
>

> So you are unwilling to respond to the deception? It's simple,
> there's a dividing line, life can only begin at birth.
>
> I vote for conservative loons, isn't that obvious?
>
> Gurney
>
> Starting violence is fun, if you choose the victim carefully. Never
> choose one that can fight back. Be sure to blame the victim
> afterwards.
>
> - Jeff Cooper
>
> P.S. Read all the links below, it'll help you clarify your thought
> processes.
>

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://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

[Don Kresch]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 20:07:18 -0700, Gunner <Gunner Asch> scrawled in

blood:

>On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 19:01:58 -0500, Don Kresch
><spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 14:52:52 -0700, Gunner <Gunner Asch> scrawled in
>>blood:
>>
>>>On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 13:50:36 -0700, Joe Dixon <J.D...@spam.invalid>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 18:42:52 +0200, "Lenny Bowers" <lbo...@invalid.org>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What has gone unmentioned, however, in the cacophony of
>>>>> condemnation by Republicans and Democrats, is the implication in
>>>>> Mr. Akin? comments that rape is not a moral justification for
>>>>> abortion. In that, he is correct: It is not.
>>>>
>>>>If a woman doesn't want the fetus for any reason that is sufficient
>>>>justification for her to abort the fetus.
>>>
>>>Then if she doesnt want the child up to the age of adulthood...she is
>>>allowed to kill the kid.
>>
>> Could you try an analogy that isn't false?
>
>Make up your mind.

I have. Could you try an analogy that isn't false.

YOU need to make up your mind: either she owns herself or she
does not.

[Don Kresch]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 20:11:05 -0700, Gunner <Gunner Asch> scrawled in
blood:

>On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 19:04:17 -0500, Don Kresch
><spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>
>>>http://www.redstate.com/aarongardner/2012/08/20/rape-abortion-and-the-moral-high-ground/
>>
>> http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp
>>
>>"The proper groundwork for analysis of abortion is in every man’s
>>absolute right of self-ownership. This implies immediately that every
>>woman has the absolute right to her own body, that she has absolute
>>dominion over her body and everything within it. This includes the
>>fetus.
>
>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fetus
>
>fe·tus (fts)
>n. pl. fe·tus·es

And? Trying to deny the woman her self-ownership is called
SLAVERY.

You don't support slavery, DO YOU?

[W.T.S.]

In article <39me38plrmrec8eor...@4ax.com>, Gunner says...

> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 23:44:13 -0700 (PDT), Yap <hhya...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> > Now you are trying to twist the subject?
> >> > Quite a genius.......
> >>

> >> Twist the subject?  Odd..I only tried to confuse the issue.

> >
> > People here are talking about fetus while you upgrade it to a child,
> > isn't it twisting the subject ?
>

> Well, yes. A Fetus isn't a child. As medical and scientific have
> clearly indicated, life only begins at birth. But, I hope you don't
> know that.
>
> My attempt to define (along with that of my peers...<spit>) what a
> fetus is..is indeed noted with contempt by everyone. A fetus is never
> a child. Only birth produces a child. But, I'm hoping you don't know
> that.
> >>
> >> Quite an ignoramus I turned out to be.

> >
> >We are laughing at your ignoramus.
>

> We? Well, yes, the intelligent people of the world do tend to laugh
> at pro-liars.

> >
> >> >>  Right?
> >>
> >> > You are an idiot who tries not to use common sense.
> >>

> >> So you are unwilling to respond to the twisted logic? Well, I'll
> >> just have to dream up some new bull shit and lies to confuse you
> >> with.

> >
> >I am not on your new subject at all.
> >Any way, the killing of a child is criminal, but seems to have been
> >encouraged by your buybull?
>
> My bullybull? So if the killing of a child is criminal, why do you
> support the murder of a fetus? The difference between a fetus and a
> child..is the length of the birth canal. Period.
> >
> >>
> >> You vote Democrat...dont you?
> >
> > Americans will always vote with their sense and of course sometimes
> > emotion, as shown in their choice of retard loony Bush.
>
> Of course Americans will vote with their senses, emotions..and brains.
> Unfortunately far too many of them voted with their emotions and

> nothing else during the last election. Hence we have actual, qualified
> President in office who's healing the country. But we conservatives
> will get another loon into office, one way or another!
>
> I'm not a real American, by the way, I hate Democracy and hope to turn
> America into a waste land!
>
> After all, look how all those spinal cord injuries are working out!
>
> Gurney
>
> Violence is good. Just chose the victim carefully, and always blame
> him, or her, afterwards.
>
> - Jeff Cooper
>
> P.S. I hate the links below, they tell far too much truth!
Well, at least you're up front about what you are, "Gurney".

[W.T.S.]

In article <19341a6d-f383-4dd8-8ad7-
48bba2...@e14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, what...@homemail.com
says...

> Odd...he doesn't have a uterus and yet...he has his say, mostly lying
> bull shit. Go figure.
>
Good point!

[raven1]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 03:57:59 -0700 (PDT), Dino <what...@homemail.com>
wrote:

*Zing* went the point far, far over your head...

[Mitchell Holman]

Gunner <Gunner Asch> wrote in news:39me38plrmrec8eorbjtet67ftarmkmfkv@
4ax.com:

>
> My bullybull? So if the killing of a child is criminal, why do you
> support the murder of a fetus? The difference between a fetus and a
> child..is the length of the birth canal. Period.

If the death of a child requires an official
investigation then should not the death of every
fetus?

[linuxgal]

Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
> If the death of a child requires an official
> investigation then should not the death of every
> fetus?

Why not the hundreds of millions of babies mass-murdered every time you
go into the bathroom with a copy of the Victoria's Secret catalog?

--
I suffer from Mallzheimer's disease. I go to the mall and forget where I
parked my car.

[Mitchell Holman]

linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in
news:Mv2dnR1a_Zrt4arN...@giganews.com:

> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>
>> If the death of a child requires an official
>> investigation then should not the death of every
>> fetus?
>
> Why not the hundreds of millions of babies mass-murdered every time you
> go into the bathroom with a copy of the Victoria's Secret catalog?
>

Or when "family values" preachers go to a public park.


http://www.examiner.com/article/anti-gay-christian-pastor-convicted-after-
masturbating-at-public-park

[MarkA]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 18:42:52 +0200, Lenny Bowers wrote:

<snip even MORE conservative misogyny>

>
> Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey,

> is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. He is the author of
> “It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for
> Personal Freedom” (Thomas Nelson, 2011).

Napolitano writes a book about personal freedom, then writes this screed
denying personal freedom for raped women?

I may have to increase my budget for irony meter replacements.


--
MarkA

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

[Fred]

Dino <what...@homemail.com> wrote:

Monty Python: "Stop oppressing me!"

---
"Fred" is my Christian name.

[Gunner]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 07:11:54 -0500, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>> > emotion, as shown in their choice of retard loony Bush.
>>
>> Of course Americans will vote with their senses, emotions..and brains.
>> Unfortunately far too many of them voted with their emotions and
>> nothing else during the last election. Hence we have actual, qualified
>> President in office who's healing the country. But we conservatives
>> will get another loon into office, one way or another!
>>
>> I'm not a real American, by the way, I hate Democracy and hope to turn
>> America into a waste land!
>>
>> After all, look how all those spinal cord injuries are working out!
>>
>> Gurney

So you are one of those that are simply here to troll and cause hate
and discontent.

Sorry. Wont play the game with you.

<plink>

Off to the bozo bin you go.

And by the way..America wasnt formed as a Democracy, but a
Constitutional Republic.

In a Democracy...we could vote to have you murdered out of hand..and
have you killed. In a Constitutional Republic...we cannot.

Which is why the coming Great Cull ..the Second American Revolution
will remove the trash and neaten up the garbage.

Gunnner

[Gunner]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 06:02:22 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
wrote:

>Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>
>> If the death of a child requires an official
>> investigation then should not the death of every
>> fetus?
>
>Why not the hundreds of millions of babies mass-murdered every time you
>go into the bathroom with a copy of the Victoria's Secret catalog?

There may be a waste of sperm cells..but no children are harmed.

[Gunner]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 07:02:04 -0500, Don Kresch

<spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:

>On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 20:11:05 -0700, Gunner <Gunner Asch> scrawled in
>blood:
>
>>On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 19:04:17 -0500, Don Kresch
>><spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>>
>>>>http://www.redstate.com/aarongardner/2012/08/20/rape-abortion-and-the-moral-high-ground/
>>>
>>> http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp
>>>
>>>"The proper groundwork for analysis of abortion is in every man’s
>>>absolute right of self-ownership. This implies immediately that every
>>>woman has the absolute right to her own body, that she has absolute
>>>dominion over her body and everything within it. This includes the
>>>fetus.
>>
>>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fetus
>>
>>fe·tus (fts)
>>n. pl. fe·tus·es
>
> And? Trying to deny the woman her self-ownership is called
>SLAVERY.
>
> You don't support slavery, DO YOU?

Slavery? Which slavery is that?

That she put herself in a position that may have created a child?

Thats slavery? Sorry..thats unintended consequences.

Like drunk driving where there is an death or injury. They punish
those that do that. She can be held liable for the results.

Same way with fucking.

Rapes...I dont have a problem with an abortion after a rape. Given
that most rapists are mentally ill, like Leftwingers..and usuallly are
Democrats..hell yes. Kill the kid

Gunner

>
>Don
>aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
>Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.

[linuxgal]

Gunner wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 06:02:22 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> If the death of a child requires an official
>>> investigation then should not the death of every
>>> fetus?
>> Why not the hundreds of millions of babies mass-murdered every time you
>> go into the bathroom with a copy of the Victoria's Secret catalog?
>
> There may be a waste of sperm cells..but no children are harmed.

My argument/snark highlights the boundary effect. Some people say only
a fetus who is born and breathes is a human being. Some people say a
fetus in the womb is a human being. Some people say a zygote is a human
being. Some people say the pre-zygote gametes are a human being. It's
hard to say.

[Dino]

On Aug 24, 8:32 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 03:57:59 -0700 (PDT), Dino <whate...@homemail.com>

If that's what makes you feel better. Can't help you for your own
short comings.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <XnsA0B94FE13CAD1...@216.196.121.131>,

Yep, some of the new restrictive laws in the various states require
investigation of all miscarriages to make sure they really were
spontaneous.

--
JD

"the lybian lier"

[Gunner]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 09:51:54 -0400, MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid>
wrote:

>On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 18:42:52 +0200, Lenny Bowers wrote:
>
><snip even MORE conservative misogyny>
>
>>
>> Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey,
>> is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. He is the author of

>> ?It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for
>> Personal Freedom? (Thomas Nelson, 2011).

>
>Napolitano writes a book about personal freedom, then writes this screed
>denying personal freedom for raped women?
>
>I may have to increase my budget for irony meter replacements.

Could you show me where rape/abortion is considered the same as
unintentional/rape?

Id be happy to see the quotes.

Of course, the woman would only be in "involuntary
servitude"....actually a roommate of low demands, for about 9 months
...in the case of rape, and of course we could sue the rapist for the
bad working conditions and poor roommate for those 9 months.

Given that most rapists are Democrats...that would be considered a
fair thing, correct? Afterall...Democrats have as their party
platform.."misery loves company", so they can simply share the misery.
And a blue state can raise the child in a good old fashioned Party
Collective.

How does that sound? The way things are now...you guys have lost some
30-40 million voters due to abortion (those that survive gang life in
childhood, drug ODs and what not)...and in fact...are fast on the way
of aborting Democrats from the political scene. By 2050..there will
only be less than half the Democrats there are now........

Hummmm.....you know....I think Im going to have to withdraw my
objections to abortion totally. Indeed. Killing off bad seed long
before its born..is a very Darwinish thing to do. Survival of the
Fittest indeed.

Never mind. Ill not object to abortion again. Afterall..it does kill
off non human tissue masses. Democrats.


Gunner

[raven1]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 12:20:58 -0700 (PDT), Dino <what...@homemail.com>
wrote:

Idiot.

<plonk>

---
raven1
aa # 1096
EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
BAAWA Knight

[elizabeth]

On Aug 23, 5:01 pm, Don Kresch <spamca...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 14:52:52 -0700, Gunner <Gunner Asch> scrawled in
> blood:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 13:50:36 -0700, Joe Dixon <J.Di...@spam.invalid>

> >wrote:
>
> >>On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 18:42:52 +0200, "Lenny Bowers" <lbow...@invalid.org>
> >>wrote:
>

> >>> What has gone unmentioned, however, in the cacophony of
> >>> condemnation by Republicans and Democrats, is the implication in
> >>> Mr. Akin? comments that rape is not a moral justification for
> >>> abortion. In that, he is correct: It is not.
>
> >>If a woman doesn't want the fetus for any reason that is sufficient
> >>justification for her to abort the fetus.
>
> >Then if she doesnt want the child up to the age of adulthood...she is
> >allowed to kill the kid.
>
>         Could you try an analogy that isn't false?
>

> Don
> aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster

> Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No, that is not within his ability or is he interested in reality or
truths of any kind.

[elizabeth]

On Aug 23, 12:42 pm, Jahnu <Jahnud...@gamail.com> wrote:
> elizabeth <elizabethfran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > LennyWennyboBenny, dearie, only a rapist feels that a woman must
> > gestate a rapist's baby, because forced gestation is just an extreme
> > form of rape.
>
> > I am very sorry that your mother didn't abort.
>
> Yes, the universe shows many examples of complexity and, indeed, may
> look designed to the naive, but no evidence for a designer of a universe
> has ever appeared. The only intellegent designers we know of come in the
> form of earthly based DNA life-forms.

The most important words are "that we know of" and it seems that many
of us don't know much about anything and willfully ignore what is
right in front of them.

Deliberate ignorance and willful stupidity is the cause of just about
all the problems our toxic species faces.

[elizabeth]

On Aug 24, 12:31 pm, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> wrote:
> In article <XnsA0B94FE13CAD1nomailcomcast...@216.196.121.131>,

And the money to pay for this? Will women who have miscarriages be
forced to prove it was really spontaneous?

[elizabeth]

On Aug 24, 5:32 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 03:57:59 -0700 (PDT), Dino <whate...@homemail.com>

Just about everything goes over his head ... it's one of the hallmarks
of terminal rectocranial impaction.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<02877225-6e34-4f6a...@qs3g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

The forced-birthers would very much want that.

[pyotr filipivich]

Gunner <Gunner Asch> on Fri, 24 Aug 2012 03:42:46 -0700 typed in
misc.survivalism the following:

>On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 23:44:13 -0700 (PDT), Yap <hhya...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>>> >Now you are trying to twist the subject?
>>> >Quite a genius.......
>>>

>>> Twist the subject?  Odd..I only added clarification.

>>
>>People here are talking about fetus while you upgrade it to a child,
>>isn't it twisting the subject ?
>

>Not at all. A Fetus IS a child. As the definitions I supplied
>indicated.
>
>Your attempt to define (along with that of your peers...<spit>) what a
>fetus is..is indeed noted with contempt.

Oh, I don't know about the contempt. ["I don't respect them enough
to expend the emotional energy."] Using their method we can simply
define them as not quite being human. Possibly refer to them as post
partium cellular tissue masses, in which case it is not homicide to
terminate their metabolic activity.

There are other aspects to this, which show "possibilities", but I
won't go into.



--
pyotr filipivich
Most journalists these days couldn't investigate a missing chocolate cake
at a pre-school without a Democrat office holder telling them what to look for,
where, and why it is Geroge Bush's fault.

[pyotr filipivich]

Gunner <Gunner Asch> on Fri, 24 Aug 2012 12:56:16 -0700 typed in
misc.survivalism the following:

>On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 09:51:54 -0400, MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 18:42:52 +0200, Lenny Bowers wrote:
>>
>><snip even MORE conservative misogyny>
>>
>>>
>>> Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey,
>>> is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. He is the author of
>>> ?It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for
>>> Personal Freedom? (Thomas Nelson, 2011).
>>
>>Napolitano writes a book about personal freedom, then writes this screed
>>denying personal freedom for raped women?
>>
>>I may have to increase my budget for irony meter replacements.
>
>Could you show me where rape/abortion is considered the same as
>unintentional/rape?
>
>Id be happy to see the quotes.
>
>Of course, the woman would only be in "involuntary
>servitude"....actually a roommate of low demands, for about 9 months
>...in the case of rape, and of course we could sue the rapist for the
>bad working conditions and poor roommate for those 9 months.

You realize that rape is the only crime where it is permissible to
kill the child of the criminal? Isn't that a violation of the
Constitutional prohibition of Bills of Attainder?
>
.
.

.
>
>Hummmm.....you know....I think Im going to have to withdraw my
>objections to abortion totally. Indeed. Killing off bad seed long
>before its born..is a very Darwinish thing to do. Survival of the
>Fittest indeed.

Considering how it seems to be mostly "Those People" who have them
...

[Gunner]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 11:09:20 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
wrote:

>Gunner wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 06:02:22 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>> If the death of a child requires an official
>>>> investigation then should not the death of every
>>>> fetus?
>>> Why not the hundreds of millions of babies mass-murdered every time you
>>> go into the bathroom with a copy of the Victoria's Secret catalog?
>>
>> There may be a waste of sperm cells..but no children are harmed.
>
>My argument/snark highlights the boundary effect. Some people say only
>a fetus who is born and breathes is a human being. Some people say a
>fetus in the womb is a human being. Some people say a zygote is a human
>being. Some people say the pre-zygote gametes are a human being. It's
>hard to say.

Indeed. If it were up to me..Id compromise and allow anything without
a developed brain to be considered "tissue mass" for the sake of
argument. Anything younger than 2 months of gestation. 1 month would
be better..shrug..but at 2 months it becomes a fetus, capable of
feeling and reacting to pain etc due to a formed brain.

It fascinating to read all of the convictions for double murder when a
pregnant mother is murdered along with her unborn. Seems that the law
can define an unborn as fully human when it wants to do so.

My argument is not whether or not a fetus is human. It is indeed a
human being. But when I commented on the mother should be allowed to
kill a child until the age of 18...why not? Its still a "child" from
the moment it forms into a fetus (see above) until it reaches the age
of majority. At the age of majority, it becomes a legal adult capable
of its own care and responsibility..ie..no longer a ward of the
mother.

So if the mother can kill her child...why not allow it up to the
moment it no longer is a child? The separation between being born and
unborn is only used as a medium by which a mother can feel "less"
guilt for murdering her child. And Ive known a number of women who
aborted..and have been racked with guilt for years afterwards. As
they should be. Abortion of a fetus is nothing more and nothing less
then the lawful taking of a human life. And the lawful part is simply
the result of Roe v Wade. Nothing more, nothing less. The taking of
a malformed, brainless fetus, such as a serious birth defect is
understandable indeed. But pregancy is elther intentional..or the
result of utter carelessness..or rape. If one is careless in a car,
motorcycle, around heavy equipment etc etc..someone may die. Aborted
children of carelessness always die. Rape..one is executing the
innocent child of a criminal act. Thats always been a tough one for
me. Why should the child be murdered because his father was an bad
actor? Let the child be born and then adopted out. And the father if
caught..forced to pay restitution until the child reaches 18. If not
caught..the victims organizations can pay for the childs expenses.
That is one tax Id be willing to pay.

On the other hand...rapists tend to be mentally ill/pychopathic and
unfortunately far too often in many cases..that gene tends to be
passed along to the child. So one may birth and adopt out a possible
future pyschopath. Thats a very very tough exception to my dislike of
abortion for conviencence..

As for killing..under the proper circumstances..I have no problem with
it. Im ex military, ex law enforcement and I carry a CCW daily. And Im
Buddhist, not Christian. Shrug. Ive killed quite a number of bad
people , quite legally, and I sleep the sleep of the just. Ive just
never murdered an innocent before, no do I consider it to be moral,
just or correct.

Shrug

Gunner, being serious for the moment and not intentionally ruffling
the feathers of the wackos.

[Gunner]

If a doctor thinks a miscarriage was intentionally done, or the result
of a criminal act by another..yes...convictions for murder have indeed
occurred.

Gunner

[Mitchell Holman]

Gunner <Gunner Asch> wrote in

news:1kmf38t7hv0hs2j2t...@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 09:51:54 -0400, MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 18:42:52 +0200, Lenny Bowers wrote:
>>
>><snip even MORE conservative misogyny>
>>
>>>
>>> Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New
>>> Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. He is
>>> the author of ?It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is
>>> Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom? (Thomas Nelson, 2011).
>>
>>Napolitano writes a book about personal freedom, then writes this
>>screed denying personal freedom for raped women?
>>
>>I may have to increase my budget for irony meter replacements.
>
> Could you show me where rape/abortion is considered the same as
> unintentional/rape?
>

What is an unintentional rape?

[Mitchell Holman]

Gunner <Gunner Asch> wrote in

news:65sf389l5def5c96e...@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 11:09:20 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Gunner wrote:
>>> On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 06:02:22 -0700, linuxgal
>>> <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>> If the death of a child requires an official
>>>>> investigation then should not the death of every
>>>>> fetus?
>>>> Why not the hundreds of millions of babies mass-murdered every time
>>>> you go into the bathroom with a copy of the Victoria's Secret
>>>> catalog?
>>>
>>> There may be a waste of sperm cells..but no children are harmed.
>>
>>My argument/snark highlights the boundary effect. Some people say
>>only a fetus who is born and breathes is a human being. Some people
>>say a fetus in the womb is a human being. Some people say a zygote is
>>a human being. Some people say the pre-zygote gametes are a human
>>being. It's hard to say.
>
> Indeed. If it were up to me..Id compromise and allow anything without
> a developed brain to be considered "tissue mass" for the sake of
> argument.

Isn't anything without a developed brain
by defination a Republican?

[elizabeth]

On Aug 23, 2:52 pm, Gunner <Gunner Asch> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 13:50:36 -0700, Joe Dixon <J.Di...@spam.invalid>

> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 18:42:52 +0200, "Lenny Bowers" <lbow...@invalid.org>
> >wrote:
>
> >> What has gone unmentioned, however, in the cacophony of
> >> condemnation by Republicans and Democrats, is the implication in
> >> Mr. Akin? comments that rape is not a moral justification for
> >> abortion. In that, he is correct: It is not.
>
> >If a woman doesn't want the fetus for any reason that is sufficient
> >justification for her to abort the fetus.
>
> Then if she doesnt want the child up to the age of adulthood...she is
> allowed to kill the kid.
>

>  Right?

>
> Gunner
>
>   One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not
> agree that "violence begets violence." I told him that it is my
> earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure
> - and in some cases I have - that any man who offers violence to his
> fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy.
>
>       - Jeff Cooper

A fetus is not a child.

[Don Kresch]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 10:57:02 -0700, Gunner <Gunner Asch> scrawled in

blood:

>On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 07:02:04 -0500, Don Kresch
><spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 20:11:05 -0700, Gunner <Gunner Asch> scrawled in
>>blood:
>>
>>>On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 19:04:17 -0500, Don Kresch
>>><spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>http://www.redstate.com/aarongardner/2012/08/20/rape-abortion-and-the-moral-high-ground/
>>>>
>>>> http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp
>>>>
>>>>"The proper groundwork for analysis of abortion is in every man�s
>>>>absolute right of self-ownership. This implies immediately that every
>>>>woman has the absolute right to her own body, that she has absolute
>>>>dominion over her body and everything within it. This includes the
>>>>fetus.
>>>
>>>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fetus
>>>
>>>fe�tus (fts)
>>>n. pl. fe�tus�es
>>
>> And? Trying to deny the woman her self-ownership is called
>>SLAVERY.
>>
>> You don't support slavery, DO YOU?
>
>Slavery? Which slavery is that?

The enslavement of the mother to the fetus by making it
illegal for the woman to exercise her right of self-ownership and have
the fetus removed from her womb, i.e. her property.

>
>That she put herself in a position that may have created a child?

So if someone plays football and breaks a bone, the person
cannot have the bone set? YES, that is the logical consequence of your
statement, like it or not.

[W.T.S.]

In article <65sf389l5def5c96e...@4ax.com>, Gunner says...

> On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 11:09:20 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
> wrote:
> >Gunner wrote:
> >> On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 06:02:22 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>

Bottom line: Abortion is always the right and proper thing to do with
fetus filth. Child birth is an abomination! End of story, end of
argument.
>

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://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

[Fred]

Gunner <Gunner Asch> wrote:

>Sorry. Wont play the game with you.

Coward.

[MarkA]

Even better question: what is unintentional/rape? Some sort of fraction?

[MarkA]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 12:56:16 -0700, Gunner wrote:

>
> Of course, the woman would only be in "involuntary servitude"....actually
> a roommate of low demands, for about 9 months

Pregnancy is potentially fatal. When it isn't fatal, it leaves lasting
stigmata on a woman's body. Would you want your 14 year old daughter to
have stretch marks and saggy breasts before she's even been on her first
date?

The rapist had no right to rape the woman; the fetus has no right to
invade her uterus.

[MarkA]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 15:00:55 -0700, Gunner wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 13:50:36 -0700, Joe Dixon <J.D...@spam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 18:42:52 +0200, "Lenny Bowers" <lbo...@invalid.org>

>>wrote:
>>
>>> What has gone unmentioned, however, in the cacophony of condemnation by
>>> Republicans and Democrats, is the implication in Mr. Akin? comments
>>> that rape is not a moral justification for abortion. In that, he is
>>> correct: It is not.
>>
>>If a woman doesn't want the fetus for any reason that is sufficient
>>justification for her to abort the fetus.
>

> http://www.redstate.com/aarongardner/2012/08/20/rape-abortion-and-the-moral-high-ground/
>
> Rape, Abortion, and the Moral High Ground
>
> Posted by Aaron Gardner (Diary)
>
> Monday, August 20th at 6:00PM EDT
>
> Recently, a long term friend and I got into a discussion about abortion
> over a few glasses of scotch. The debate devolved quickly into an outright
> fight. I held firm in the position that abortion was either a form of
> murder, and was therefore wrong in all instances where the physical life
> of the mother wasn’t threatened, or it wasn’t. The friend insisted that
> there must be exceptions in instances of rape or incest.
>

I think the first position is the correct one. However, I take the view
that abortion is NOT murder, as the fetus can hardly be considered to be
comparable to a fully developed neonate. Just as an acorn is not an oak
tree, and batter is not cake, a fetus is not a baby.

Anyone who thinks that abortion should only be legal in cases of rape,
incest, or when the life of the mother is in danger, is using a double
standard. Abortion should always be the prerogative of the mother.

[MarkA]

You are missing the point that the purpose of an abortion is not to kill a
fetus; it is to terminate the pregnancy. The medical term for abortion is
"elective termination of pregnancy". The fact that the fetus dies in the
process is an unavoidable consequence. Once the child is born, the woman
no longer has any need to defend her body.

[Gunner]

And the child murderers dont want it.

Seems like its pretty much of a moot issue at the moment. Roe v Wade
is the law of the land..at the moment.

Im curious though..think a woman miscarries and never goes to the
doctor as a result? Well...maybe in a turd world nation..but then..we
arent talking about them..are we?

The doctors cant tell by her demeanor and by her physical signs if it
was a punch in the stomach...or something unfortunate but natural?

Or do you normally miscarry and simply go on about your day? If
so...who would know you had a miscarraige?

Not a very good try there, cupcake. Not a very good try at all.
Say...you vote Democrat..dont you?

[Gunner]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 14:42:49 -0700, pyotr filipivich
<ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>Gunner <Gunner Asch> on Fri, 24 Aug 2012 03:42:46 -0700 typed in
>misc.survivalism the following:
>>On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 23:44:13 -0700 (PDT), Yap <hhya...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>>> >Now you are trying to twist the subject?
>>>> >Quite a genius.......
>>>>
>>>> Twist the subject?  Odd..I only added clarification.
>>>
>>>People here are talking about fetus while you upgrade it to a child,
>>>isn't it twisting the subject ?
>>
>>Not at all. A Fetus IS a child. As the definitions I supplied
>>indicated.
>>
>>Your attempt to define (along with that of your peers...<spit>) what a
>>fetus is..is indeed noted with contempt.
>
> Oh, I don't know about the contempt. ["I don't respect them enough
>to expend the emotional energy."] Using their method we can simply
>define them as not quite being human. Possibly refer to them as post
>partium cellular tissue masses, in which case it is not homicide to
>terminate their metabolic activity.
>
> There are other aspects to this, which show "possibilities", but I
>won't go into.

The Great Cull may be gaining ground..when even a harmless, lovable
church going fellow like you has such dangerous thoughts.

<VBG>

Gunner

>
>
>
>--
>pyotr filipivich
>Most journalists these days couldn't investigate a missing chocolate cake
>at a pre-school without a Democrat office holder telling them what to look for,
>where, and why it is Geroge Bush's fault.

[Mike Lovell]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2012-08-25, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> And the money to pay for this? Will women who have miscarriages be
>>> forced to prove it was really spontaneous?
>>
>>The forced-birthers would very much want that.
>

> And the child murderers dont want it. [...]

Who are these child murderers? I thought were were discussing abortion.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iJwEAQECAAYFAlA4U0QACgkQRuP0ePfiZW4/DgQArti4+oIDGakKCCylQNRRe0Yu
FRiy9XdLL4tS7sYI8liHJEfebgtAc9VDE13GX5RQ8k50X6sYAPRUQmRGx/7Q4PoF
b5yGutPASPjslDQmqmVHRu8QRdCiX0K54le8fq6tBbGflsLF/QCg/xfMLGS2ik7P
xsTxm+iDT3ls8f9JPYI=
=uRuM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Gunner]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 18:09:05 -0500, Don Kresch

She should have thought of that before she fucked.

>
>>
>>That she put herself in a position that may have created a child?
>
> So if someone plays football and breaks a bone, the person
>cannot have the bone set? YES, that is the logical consequence of your
>statement, like it or not.

Not at all. Where the hell did you get that idea? But then..you
would recommend that if one breaks a leg..they have it amputated.
Correct? Afterall...recovery time is only 9 months for a baby.
Amputation is for life. Right?

Gunner

>
>
>Don
>aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
>Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.

[Gunner]

Your opinion, that of a person who is in favor of murdering
children..is noted with contempt.

You do know the definition of a fetus, correct? Or did you miss that
session while out hitting the bong?

fe·tus (fts)
n. pl. fe·tus·es

1. The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic
structural resemblance to the adult animal.
2. In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after
conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier
embryo.
[Middle English, from Latin ftus, offspring; see dh(i)- in
Indo-European roots.]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
fetus, foetus [?fi?t?s]
n pl -tuses
(Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) the embryo of a mammal
in the later stages of development, when it shows all the main
recognizable features of the mature animal, esp a human embryo from
the end of the second month of pregnancy until birth Compare embryo
[2]
[from Latin: offspring, brood]

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins
Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
fetus (fts)
The unborn offspring of a mammal at the later stages of its
development, especially a human from eight weeks after fertilization
to its birth. In a fetus, all major body organs are present.
fetal adjective

The American Heritage® Science Dictionary Copyright © 2005 by Houghton
Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights
reserved.
fetus - A human embryo starts to be called a fetus at nine weeks.

Farlex Trivia Dictionary. © 2012 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.
ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun 1. fetus - an unborn or unhatched vertebrate in the later
stages of development showing the main recognizable features of the
mature animalfetus - an unborn or unhatched vertebrate in the later
stages of development showing the main recognizable features of the
mature animal
foetus
teras, monster - (medicine) a grossly malformed and usually nonviable
fetus
abortus - a human fetus whose weight is less than 0.5 kilogram when
removed or expelled from the mother's body
craniate, vertebrate - animals having a bony or cartilaginous skeleton
with a segmented spinal column and a large brain enclosed in a skull
or cranium
ductus arteriosus - a blood vessel in a fetus that bypasses pulmonary
circulation by connecting the pulmonary artery directly to the
ascending aorta; normally closes at birth
umbilical, umbilical cord - membranous duct connecting the fetus with
the placenta
baby - an unborn child; a human fetus; "I felt healthy and very
feminine carrying the baby"; "it was great to feel my baby moving
about inside"

[Gunner]

This coming from sonmeone who claims a fetus isnt a baby?

ROFLMAO!!...Damnit..I hate it when Mt Dew comes out my nose!!

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <0bhg38p0i9jdi6ggc...@4ax.com>,

What child murderers?

> Seems like its pretty much of a moot issue at the moment. Roe v Wade
> is the law of the land..at the moment.
>
> Im curious though..think a woman miscarries and never goes to the
> doctor as a result? Well...maybe in a turd world nation..but then..we
> arent talking about them..are we?

Considering the dearth of doctors in poor areas (and the danger of
having none wherever Planned Parenthood is closed), it might as well be
3rd world.

> The doctors cant tell by her demeanor and by her physical signs if it
> was a punch in the stomach...or something unfortunate but natural?
>
> Or do you normally miscarry and simply go on about your day? If
> so...who would know you had a miscarraige?
>
> Not a very good try there, cupcake. Not a very good try at all.
> Say...you vote Democrat..dont you?

It's already happening:

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/24/america-pregnant-women-murde
r-charges>

<http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/abortion-civil-rights-other-social-issue
s/65708-new-georgia-bill-could-prosecute-miscarriages.html>

<http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/07/01/256823/pregnant-women-crimin
al-charges/?mobile=nc>

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <s1lg38pj3s134lvuj...@4ax.com>,

Because it's not a baby. It has to be born to be a baby.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <8skg38teqi4hdvce0...@4ax.com>,

If you're going to play definitions:

Baby
Noun:
A very young child, esp. one newly or recently born.

Notice the word "born".

[Olrik]

Le 2012-08-25 00:27, Gunner a écrit :
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 14:15:24 -0700 (PDT), elizabeth

> fetus (fts)
> The unborn

Bingo!

[W.T.S.]

In article <0bhg38p0i9jdi6ggc...@4ax.com>,
gunne...@gmail.com says...

> On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 14:33:34 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> <hlw...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >In article
> ><02877225-6e34-4f6a...@qs3g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
> > elizabeth <elizabet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Aug 24, 12:31 pm, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> wrote:
> >> > In article <XnsA0B94FE13CAD1nomailcomcast...@216.196.121.131>,
> >> >  Mitchell Holman <nomailcomcast.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Gunner <Gunner Asch> wrote in news:39me38plrmrec8eorbjtet67ftarmkmfkv@
> >> > > 4ax.com:
> >> >
> >> > > > My bullybull?  So if the killing of a child is criminal, why do you
> >> > > > support the murder of a fetus?  The difference between a fetus and a

> >> > > > child..is everything.  Period.

> >> >
> >> > >     If the death of a child requires an official
> >> > > investigation then should not the death of every
> >> > > fetus?
> >> >
> >> > Yep, some of the new restrictive laws in the various states require
> >> > investigation of all miscarriages to make sure they really were
> >> > spontaneous.
> >> >

> >> > JD
> >> >
> >> > "the lybian lier"
> >>
> >> And the money to pay for this? Will women who have miscarriages be
> >> forced to prove it was really spontaneous?
> >
> >The forced-birthers would very much want that.
>

> And normal, decent people dont want it. Just pro-liars.

>
> Seems like its pretty much of a moot issue at the moment. Roe v Wade
> is the law of the land..at the moment.
>
> Im curious though..think a woman miscarries and never goes to the
> doctor as a result? Well...maybe in a turd world nation..but then..we
> arent talking about them..are we?
>
> The doctors cant tell by her demeanor and by her physical signs if it
> was a punch in the stomach...or something unfortunate but natural?
>
> Or do you normally miscarry and simply go on about your day? If
> so...who would know you had a miscarraige?
>

> Very excellent point! Many fertilized eggs miscarry, and the woman
> never knows.
> Say...you vote Democrat..dont you? Everyone should. Republicans are
> the ones that hate women so much.
More very good points.
>
> Gurney
>
> For the real thuth, see the links below:

[Jahnu]

Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not
> agree that "violence begets violence." I told him that it is my
> earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure
> - and in some cases I have - that any man who offers violence to his
> fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy.
>
> - Jeff Cooper

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not
engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must
marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be
allowed to divorce her.

[Patrick]

"W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> http://www.imnotsorry.net
> >
> http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17gbnyv0yzhevjpg/original.jpg
> >
> http://tinyurl.com/7q2ft38
> >
> http://tinyurl.com/7hk9gk8

Creationism should be seen as a pseudoscience because it:

- Does not give detailed explanations and does not seek to extend
range of science. Seems to be more of a rear guard action.
- Proponents usually do not have proper credentials.
- Publications make multitude of claims which are difficult to check out.
- They bury you with details.
- The theory is not new. It's an obsolete theory that has been
rejected many times.

[u4z]

Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Le 2012-08-25 00:27, Gunner a �crit :

> > On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 14:15:24 -0700 (PDT), elizabeth
>
> > fetus (fts)
> > The unborn
>
> Bingo!
>

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things
and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things,
that takes religion.

[pyotr filipivich]

Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com> on Fri, 24 Aug 2012 21:21:44 -0700 typed

I just wonder if "they"have thought it through. If there is a gay
gene, can the markers be found for it, just as with other genetic
disorders?
If it is not a human being, then what is it? When does it become
a human being? Why not wait until a more complete evaluation can be
made, say after 30, sixty, 360 days after deliver? 3650 days? But why
be hasty? What's another day? Or two? Or seven? (reminds me of the
comedian "We're just living together to see if it works out" - oh
yeah. I can see it "Child, these grades of yours don't look too good.
You're going to have to do better at spelling, or I'm not sure
marrying your mother would be a good idea.")
If the traditional definition of a cultural foundation can be
redefined according to a political agenda - why stop there?

Ergo ... it is not "murder" or even homicide to terminate the
metabolic activity of a post partum tissue mass which has certain
genetic markers indicating an undesirable quality. Can't really
"kill" something which wasn't "alive", can you?

And if a judge declares it legal, what are they going to do?
Suddenly become strict constructionists?

[Gunner]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 22:08:45 -0400, MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid>

The fact that the Baby dies in the process is a consequence.
True indeed.

Now..defend her body from what? Her own fuckup? So if a drunk driver
kills after the fact...someone injured in an auto crash..thats ok with
you?

Gunner

[Yap]

On Aug 24, 7:01 pm, Dino <whate...@homemail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 24, 2:44 am, Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 24, 2:06 pm, Gunner <Gunner Asch> wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 20:20:57 -0700 (PDT), Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:

>
> > > >On Aug 24, 5:52 am, Gunner <Gunner Asch> wrote:
> > > >> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 13:50:36 -0700, Joe Dixon <J.Di...@spam.invalid>
> > > >> wrote:
>
> > > >> >On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 18:42:52 +0200, "Lenny Bowers" <lbow...@invalid.org>
> > > >> >wrote:
>
> > > >> >> What has gone unmentioned, however, in the cacophony of
> > > >> >> condemnation by Republicans and Democrats, is the implication in
> > > >> >> Mr. Akin? comments that rape is not a moral justification for
> > > >> >> abortion. In that, he is correct: It is not.
>
> > > >> >If a woman doesn't want the fetus for any reason that is sufficient
> > > >> >justification for her to abort the fetus.
>
> > > >> Then if she doesnt want the child up to the age of adulthood...she is
> > > >> allowed to kill the kid.
>

> > > >Now you are trying to twist the subject?
> > > >Quite a genius.......
>
> > > Twist the subject?  Odd..I only added clarification.
>
> > People here are talking about fetus while you upgrade it to a child,
> > isn't it twisting the subject ?
>

> Most of us know how important terms are to you and others within your
> ilk.

Oh, without a proper terms and agreed definition, how can we discuss
and debate a subject?

> You have to use terms because it masks the truth. Kind of like the
> ostrich
> burying his head in the sand.  It "sounds" better to say fetus.

No, I don't bury my head like you do........
If a fetus is a child, why do you and Gunner need to use the term
fetus?

>
> What ever makes you sleep at night I guess.

I sleep sound and well.......because I care for all women.
But being a pro-liar, you care for an fertilized egg which will be
alive for 8-9 months to become a child....but the woman will have to
suffer for the rest of her long life is not being considered by you?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Quite an ignoramus you turned out to be.
>
> > We are laughing at your ignoramus.
>
> > > >>  Right?
>
> > > >You are an idiot who tries not to use common sense.
>
> > > So you are unwilling to respond to the clarification?  And must attack
> > > the poster rather than addressing the subject matter?
>
> > I am not on your new subject at all.
> > Any way, the killing of a child is criminal, but seems to have been
> > encouraged by your buybull?
>
> > > You vote Democrat...dont you?
>
> > Americans will always vote with their sense
>
> Stop...that's not true at all.

Why? Obama was voted in to be the President, isn't it sense?

>
> and of course sometimes
>
> > emotion, as shown in their choice of retard loony Bush.
>
> So as long as it makes "sense" to YOU...then it's right.

Well, do you consider Bush's invention of excuses to invade other
nation a right thing?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Gunner

[Gunner]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 21:51:36 -0700, Jeanne Douglas

People aborting normally developing children. What...you just wake up
from a nap?

>
>
>> Seems like its pretty much of a moot issue at the moment. Roe v Wade
>> is the law of the land..at the moment.
>>
>> Im curious though..think a woman miscarries and never goes to the
>> doctor as a result? Well...maybe in a turd world nation..but then..we
>> arent talking about them..are we?
>
>Considering the dearth of doctors in poor areas (and the danger of
>having none wherever Planned Parenthood is closed), it might as well be
>3rd world.

Dearth of doctors? Which areas might those be? What..ObamaCare isnt
working worth a shit?

You do know its a Federal law that one can see a doctor without
payment at any ER in the US, right?

>
>
>> The doctors cant tell by her demeanor and by her physical signs if it
>> was a punch in the stomach...or something unfortunate but natural?
>>
>> Or do you normally miscarry and simply go on about your day? If
>> so...who would know you had a miscarraige?
>>
>> Not a very good try there, cupcake. Not a very good try at all.
>> Say...you vote Democrat..dont you?
>
>It's already happening:
>
><http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/24/america-pregnant-women-murde
>r-charges>

"Gibbs became pregnant aged 15, but lost the baby in December 2006 in
a stillbirth when she was 36 weeks into the pregnancy. When
prosecutors discovered that she had a cocaine habit � though there is
no evidence that drug abuse had anything to do with the baby's death �
they charged her with the "depraved-heart murder" of her child, which
carries a mandatory life sentence."

Felony use of cocaine, while pregnant. Ayup...seems like a legitimate
crime for which she should be tried, convicted and sent to prison.
For a very long time. Life sounds a bit long for a brainless 15 yr old
though. If a Democrat thug holds up a liquor store and kills everybody
inside..they only get 15-life as a rule. So it would be fair to give
her the same sentence.

Unless you are saying that someone held a gun to her head and forced
her to snort a couple lines...right?

You arnt telling me that...right?

><http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/abortion-civil-rights-other-social-issue
>s/65708-new-georgia-bill-could-prosecute-miscarriages.html>
>
><http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/07/01/256823/pregnant-women-crimin
>al-charges/?mobile=nc>

Works for me. You drive drunk and kill somebody...you dont get a free
pass. You do dope, and kill somebody...you dont get a free pass.

Yet..you have some sort of problem with this?

What..you run a liquor store or sell drugs?

[Yap]

On Aug 24, 6:42 pm, Gunner <Gunner Asch> wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 23:44:13 -0700 (PDT), Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> >Now you are trying to twist the subject?
> >> >Quite a genius.......
>
> >> Twist the subject?  Odd..I only added clarification.
>
> >People here are talking about fetus while you upgrade it to a child,
> >isn't it twisting the subject ?
>

> Not at all. A Fetus IS a child. As the definitions I supplied
> indicated.

If a fetus is a child, why do you have two different terms?

>
> Your attempt to define (along with that of your peers...<spit>) what a
> fetus is..is indeed noted with contempt.

So, how do you define fetus?

>
>
>
> >> Quite an ignoramus you turned out to be.
>
> >We are laughing at your ignoramus.
>

> We? You have a mouse in your pocket? Or is this the "royal we" that
> those that believe themselves to be royalty, use?

We means us here who are laughing at you pro-lying attitude.
Or laughing at you being cursed by those women.

I think you are not a woman, otherwise you would not have been in such
a disregard for them.

>
>
>
> >> >>  Right?
>
> >> >You are an idiot who tries not to use common sense.
>
> >> So you are unwilling to respond to the clarification?  And must attack
> >> the poster rather than addressing the subject matter?
>
> >I am not on your new subject at all.
> >Any way, the killing of a child is criminal, but seems to have been
> >encouraged by your buybull?
>

> My bullybull?  So if the killing of a child is criminal, why do you
> support the murder of a fetus?  The difference between a fetus and a
> child..is the length of the birth canal.  Period.

I don't support the abortion per se....the choice is for the concerned
woman to take.
If she has too much emotional worries over the fetus, then she has a
right to abort or give away after it is born.

While you have the kind sentiment for those fetus, do you not care
about the welfare of the mother for the rest of her life?

And your stand is probably derived from the stance of your religion?

>
>
>
> >> You vote Democrat...dont you?
>
> >Americans will always vote with their sense and of course sometimes

> >emotion, as shown in their choice of retard loony Bush.
>

> Of course Americans will vote with their senses, emotions..and brains.
> Unfortunately far too many of them voted with their emotions and
> nothing else during the last election. Hence we have the Marxist in
> Chief and his minions currently enjoying their one term stay in the
> Whitehouse.

I was actually thinking that Obama could not make it to the White
House.
it surprised me a lot that more than half of the Americans are
sensible and voted for him.

But, the major reasons Obama won was the ugly loony attitude of Bush.

>
> I take it you are not an American?  Which nation are you a citizen of,
> that enables you to judge both Americans and the reasons behind
> American law?  You arent a Canadian...are you?

I do not have tell you anything about myself, since it is irrelevant
to my post.
I can observe as an outsider or an insider.

>
> Say..hows that Canadian Gun Registration working out for you?

I have no comment on that.....but I believe it is nuts for each
Americans to own a gun(it is called inferiority complex).
Most nations in this world do not allow their citizens guns.....there
is no cowboy mentality elsewhere in this world.

Look at the past tragedies when some idiots started to shoot the
innocent people.
Will you be an insane attacker in future?

[Gunner]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 21:55:13 -0400, MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid>
wrote:

>On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 12:56:16 -0700, Gunner wrote:
>
>>
>> Of course, the woman would only be in "involuntary servitude"....actually
>> a roommate of low demands, for about 9 months
>
>Pregnancy is potentially fatal. When it isn't fatal, it leaves lasting
>stigmata on a woman's body. Would you want your 14 year old daughter to
>have stretch marks and saggy breasts before she's even been on her first
>date?

What...she is going to sit on her ass, scarf up a ton of potato chips
and Cokes and put on 150 lbs?

Walking across the street is potentially fatal. Climbing in a step
ladder is potentially fatal. Driving drunk or on drugs is potentially
fatal. And?

Oh..you mean the Possibility of stretch marks if she goes into Pig
Mode means she gets to kill an innocent human being?

What..she has an agent and lives in Hollywood???

>
>The rapist had no right to rape the woman; the fetus has no right to
>invade her uterus.

Invade her uterus. Interesting concept. Actually..it was half her
fault. So she should sue her body for costs and damages.
Afterall..if that damned egg wasn't ready to catch one...she would
have been just hunky.

Now if your teenage daughter winds up fucking the pool guy...she
should have no consequences if she didn't take her pill/norplant/iud
etc...right?

That's rather enabling of you isn't it? I wonder if I should report
you to child protective services?

[Gunner]

Ayup. Now that you snipped the other definitions completely, Im
supposed to be more receptive to reading your verbal diarrhea?

[Gunner]

The opinion of a baby killer is noted with contempt.

[Yap]

On Aug 24, 9:02 pm, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
> >     If the death of a child requires an official
> > investigation then should not the death of every
> > fetus?
>

> Why not the hundreds of millions of babies mass-murdered every time you
> go into the bathroom with a copy of the Victoria's Secret catalog?

Hahahaha.......you have quite a sense of humor ?

So, you care for one winner and ignore all hundred of millions of
others?

>
> --
> I suffer from Mallzheimer's disease. I go to the mall and forget where I
> parked my car.

[Yap]

On Aug 25, 1:52 am, Gunner <Gunner Asch> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 06:02:22 -0700, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com>

> wrote:
>
> >Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
> >>     If the death of a child requires an official
> >> investigation then should not the death of every
> >> fetus?
>
> >Why not the hundreds of millions of babies mass-murdered every time you
> >go into the bathroom with a copy of the Victoria's Secret catalog?
>

> There may be a waste of sperm cells..but no children are harmed.

The next time around, you may want to advocate that human should not
have sex.....it kills hundreds of millions of lives, except perhaps
for one.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <j40h38dkup3n0vd1j...@4ax.com>,

Because I wasn't responding to them there was no reason to leave them in.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <270h38hb2vgaqg2jh...@4ax.com>,

What baby killer?

[Yap]

On Aug 24, 8:02 pm, Don Kresch <spamca...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 20:11:05 -0700, Gunner <Gunner Asch> scrawled in
> blood:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> >On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 19:04:17 -0500, Don Kresch

> ><spamca...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>
> >>>http://www.redstate.com/aarongardner/2012/08/20/rape-abortion-and-the...

>
> >>        http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp
>
> >>"The proper groundwork for analysis of abortion is in every man’s
> >>absolute right of self-ownership. This implies immediately that every
> >>woman has the absolute right to her own body, that she has absolute
> >>dominion over her body and everything within it. This includes the
> >>fetus.
>
> >http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fetus
>

> >fe·tus  (fts)
> >n. pl. fe·tus·es
>

>         And? Trying to deny the woman her self-ownership is called
> SLAVERY.
>
>         You don't support slavery, DO YOU?

Why do you think this Gunner is not a die hard worshiper of his
scripture and supports slavery?

[Yap]

On Aug 25, 1:57 am, Gunner <Gunner Asch> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 07:02:04 -0500, Don Kresch

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <spamca...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
> >On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 20:11:05 -0700, Gunner <Gunner Asch> scrawled in
> >blood:
>
> >>On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 19:04:17 -0500, Don Kresch
> >><spamca...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>
> >>>>http://www.redstate.com/aarongardner/2012/08/20/rape-abortion-and-the...
>
> >>>    http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp
>
> >>>"The proper groundwork for analysis of abortion is in every man’s
> >>>absolute right of self-ownership. This implies immediately that every
> >>>woman has the absolute right to her own body, that she has absolute
> >>>dominion over her body and everything within it. This includes the
> >>>fetus.
>
> >>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fetus
>
> >>fe·tus  (fts)
> >>n. pl. fe·tus·es
>
> >    And? Trying to deny the woman her self-ownership is called
> >SLAVERY.
>
> >    You don't support slavery, DO YOU?
>

> Slavery?  Which slavery is that?

Oh, playing dumb?
Are we suppose to accommodate dumb person here?

>
> That she put herself in a position that may have created a child?

Why? You mean it is her fault when raped?

>
> Thats slavery?  Sorry..thats unintended consequences.

Now you have waken up.....you ain't a woman, right?
So, you have no idea what emotional stress one can go through for
multiple years, right?

>
> Like drunk driving where there is an death or injury.   They punish
> those that do that. She can be held liable for the results.

By right, drunk driving in killing another person should be capital
punishment !

>
> Same way with fucking.

Most love makings are prevented with condoms, rarely have any
consequences.

>
> Rapes...I dont have a problem with an abortion after a rape. Given
> that most rapists are mentally ill, like Leftwingers..and usuallly are
> Democrats..hell yes.  Kill the kid

Now you are straying into political stage fight...........
Your emotional cry does not help you here, quit before your high blood
pressure strikes red zone.

>
> Gunner

>
>
>
> >Don
> >aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
> >Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
>

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <p9vg38t1umhl5s417...@4ax.com>,

You can't abort somebody who's been born. How would that be possible?

> >> Seems like its pretty much of a moot issue at the moment. Roe v Wade
> >> is the law of the land..at the moment.
> >>
> >> Im curious though..think a woman miscarries and never goes to the
> >> doctor as a result? Well...maybe in a turd world nation..but then..we
> >> arent talking about them..are we?
> >
> >Considering the dearth of doctors in poor areas (and the danger of
> >having none wherever Planned Parenthood is closed), it might as well be
> >3rd world.
>
> Dearth of doctors? Which areas might those be? What..ObamaCare isnt
> working worth a shit?

Every poor neighborhood in this country.

> You do know its a Federal law that one can see a doctor without
> payment at any ER in the US, right?

Do you enjoy paying an extra $1000 every year in your premiums to pay
for all that overly expensive emergency room care? Wouldn't it be better
for people to see doctors before their conditions become emergencies?

> >> The doctors cant tell by her demeanor and by her physical signs if it
> >> was a punch in the stomach...or something unfortunate but natural?
> >>
> >> Or do you normally miscarry and simply go on about your day? If
> >> so...who would know you had a miscarraige?
> >>
> >> Not a very good try there, cupcake. Not a very good try at all.
> >> Say...you vote Democrat..dont you?
> >
> >It's already happening:
> >
> ><http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/24/america-pregnant-women-murde
> >r-charges>
>
> "Gibbs became pregnant aged 15, but lost the baby in December 2006 in
> a stillbirth when she was 36 weeks into the pregnancy. When
> prosecutors discovered that she had a cocaine habit – though there is
> no evidence that drug abuse had anything to do with the baby's death –
> they charged her with the "depraved-heart murder" of her child, which
> carries a mandatory life sentence."
>
> Felony use of cocaine, while pregnant. Ayup...seems like a legitimate
> crime for which she should be tried, convicted and sent to prison.
> For a very long time. Life sounds a bit long for a brainless 15 yr old
> though. If a Democrat thug holds up a liquor store and kills everybody
> inside..they only get 15-life as a rule. So it would be fair to give
> her the same sentence.
>
> Unless you are saying that someone held a gun to her head and forced
> her to snort a couple lines...right?
>
> You arnt telling me that...right?

The doctors say the cocaine had no effect on the death of the baby.

> ><http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/abortion-civil-rights-other-social-issue
> >s/65708-new-georgia-bill-could-prosecute-miscarriages.html>
> >
> ><http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/07/01/256823/pregnant-women-crimin
> >al-charges/?mobile=nc>
>
> Works for me. You drive drunk and kill somebody...you dont get a free
> pass. You do dope, and kill somebody...you dont get a free pass.
>
> Yet..you have some sort of problem with this?
>
> What..you run a liquor store or sell drugs?

[Yap]

On Aug 25, 5:48 am, Gunner <Gunner Asch> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 12:31:51 -0700, Jeanne Douglas

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <hlwd...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> wrote:
> >In article <XnsA0B94FE13CAD1nomailcomcast...@216.196.121.131>,
> > Mitchell Holman <nomailcomcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> Gunner <Gunner Asch> wrote in news:39me38plrmrec8eorbjtet67ftarmkmfkv@
> >> 4ax.com:
>
> >> > My bullybull?  So if the killing of a child is criminal, why do you
> >> > support the murder of a fetus?  The difference between a fetus and a
> >> > child..is the length of the birth canal.  Period.
>
> >>     If the death of a child requires an official
> >> investigation then should not the death of every
> >> fetus?
>
> >Yep, some of the new restrictive laws in the various states require
> >investigation of all miscarriages to make sure they really were
> >spontaneous.
>

> If a doctor thinks a miscarriage was intentionally done, or the result
> of a criminal act by another..yes...convictions for murder have indeed
> occurred.

That is why abortion has been allowed by law to make it clear cut.
It is a sensible regulation for the woman concerned....not you.

>
> Gunner

[Yap]

On Aug 25, 5:58 am, Mitchell Holman <nomailcomcast.net> wrote:
> Gunner <Gunner Asch> wrote innews:65sf389l5def5c96e...@4ax.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 11:09:20 -0700, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com>
> > wrote:

>
> >>Gunner wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 06:02:22 -0700, linuxgal
> >>> <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:

> >>>>>     If the death of a child requires an official
> >>>>> investigation then should not the death of every
> >>>>> fetus?

> >>>> Why not the hundreds of millions of babies mass-murdered every time
> >>>> you go into the bathroom with a copy of the Victoria's Secret
> >>>> catalog?
>
> >>> There may be a waste of sperm cells..but no children are harmed.
>

> >>My argument/snark highlights the boundary effect.  Some people say
> >>only a fetus who is born and breathes is a human being.  Some people
> >>say a fetus in the womb is a human being.  Some people say a zygote is
> >>a human being.  Some people say the pre-zygote gametes are a human
> >>being.  It's hard to say.
>
> > Indeed.  If it were up to me..Id compromise and allow anything without
> > a developed brain to be considered  "tissue mass" for the sake of
> > argument.
>

>    Isn't anything without a developed brain
> by defination a Republican?

And whether or not Gunner is a GOP, he has an underdeveloped brain as
well.
Otherwise, he would be conned by his scripture.

[Yap]

On Aug 25, 12:24 pm, Gunner <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 18:09:05 -0500, Don Kresch
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <spamca...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
> >On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 10:57:02 -0700, Gunner <Gunner Asch> scrawled in

> >blood:
>
> >>On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 07:02:04 -0500, Don Kresch
> >><spamca...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>
> >>>On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 20:11:05 -0700, Gunner <Gunner Asch> scrawled in
> >>>blood:
>
> >>>>On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 19:04:17 -0500, Don Kresch
> >>>><spamca...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>http://www.redstate.com/aarongardner/2012/08/20/rape-abortion-and-the...
>
> >>>>>    http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp
>
> >>>>>"The proper groundwork for analysis of abortion is in every man’s
> >>>>>absolute right of self-ownership. This implies immediately that every
> >>>>>woman has the absolute right to her own body, that she has absolute
> >>>>>dominion over her body and everything within it. This includes the
> >>>>>fetus.
>
> >>>>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fetus
>
> >>>>fe·tus  (fts)
> >>>>n. pl. fe·tus·es
>
> >>>    And? Trying to deny the woman her self-ownership is called
> >>>SLAVERY.
>
> >>>    You don't support slavery, DO YOU?
>
> >>Slavery?  Which slavery is that?
>

> >    The enslavement of the mother to the fetus by making it
> >illegal for the woman to exercise her right of self-ownership and have
> >the fetus removed from her womb, i.e. her property.
>
> She should have thought of that before she fucked.

>
>
>
> >>That she put herself in a position that may have created a child?
>

> >    So if someone plays football and breaks a bone, the person
> >cannot have the bone set? YES, that is the logical consequence of your
> >statement, like it or not.
>
> Not at all.  Where the hell did you get that idea?  But then..you
> would recommend that if one breaks a leg..they have it amputated.
> Correct?  Afterall...recovery time is only 9 months for a baby.
> Amputation is for life. Right?

Don is talking about the right of the footballer.

No body here is giving advise to a woman to have abortion, it is her
choice to decide. We merely support her choice.
But in the case above, you are asking us to advise the footballer to
amputate his broken leg, this is not right.

You GOP member are quite confused or your brain don't function
well....as usual.

>
> Gunner
>
>
>
> >Don
> >aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
> >Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
>

[Yap]

On Aug 25, 1:44 pm, Jahnu <Jahnud...@gamail.com> wrote:

Is Gunner's daughter married or too ugly?
Can I use your above advise/scripture command on his daughter?

[Gunner]

On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 01:00:10 -0700 (PDT), Yap <hhya...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Actually...Im a Democrat.

>Otherwise, he would be conned by his scripture.

My "scripture"? Buddhists dont have "scripture"

Im amazed. Ive been called a Nazi today (And Ive never been a
Socialist..so I cant be a Nazi), Ive been called a racist..and Im not
white, Ive been called stupid (yet I have an engineering degree)

You Useless Eaters are really not doing very well. Whats up with that?

Guner