Why Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control
Sound of Trumpet
http://www.crisismagazine.com/febmarch2006/shea.htm
Cooperating with the Creator: Birth Control and the Church
Mark P. Shea
If you had collared me before I was Catholic and asked my opinion of
Rome's teaching on artificial contraception, I would have said
something like this:
"I understand and applaud the Magisterium's opposition to abortion,
since abortion kills people. But I'm not comfortable with the
Church's stodgy stand on artificial contraception based on Her
opposition to 'interference with nature.' After all, we interfere
with nature all the time when we dye our hair, pierce our ears, and use
sun blockers to avoid the natural process of suntan and skin cancer. So
it seems to me that the real question is not 'Shall we interfere?'
but, 'At what level are we comfortable interfering?'"
This seemed to me a deft deflection of the Church's "intrusive"
teaching-until I started thinking about the challenge of
biotechnology and genetic engineering. I began to recognize that my use
of the word "interference" was a lousy blanket term for describing
every sort of technological fiddling with nature and (as is especially
the case with molecular biology) with persons. Both a gunshot and a
penicillin shot "interfere" with human biology. However, such
interference springs from markedly different intentions and has
markedly different results. Of course, other interference, like
piercing ears or dyeing hair, is largely morally neutral. That's why
indiscriminately labeling everything from vaccination to fetal
harvesting as "interference" and then appealing to "comfort
levels" to determine what shall and shall not be done is-I came to
realize-hopelessly inadequate.
The question of how to care for and love human life at its most basic
level isn't a matter of obeying the whims of human comfort, but of
obeying the will of the Creator of human life. The more I pondered the
momentous dangers posed to the dignity of the human person by
biotechnology, the more perilous and premature my ephemeral
"comfort" dodge appeared. It became obvious to me that matters
pertaining to the most fundamental truths of human existence could not
be left merely to one's sense of comfort, but could only be decided
on a much more solid basis: "What is good, and what is evil?"
I began to wonder, "According to revelation, just what is God up to
in creating a human being?"
Looking at Scripture, we find that the primary image revealed is of God
molding man from the dust of the earth and breathing life into his
nostrils. Thus, as Christianity has always taught, a human being is
revealed from the very beginning to be (1) a creation of the Love who
is God, and (2) a mysterious and fruitful union of spirit (symbolized
by breath) and nature (symbolized by dust).
The word "union" is crucial here. The temptation of our culture is
always to try to separate and exalt either the spiritual or the
physical aspect of the human person. Thus to the gnostic, New Age,
"spiritual" type, human beings are all soul, and the body is just a
disposable Tupperware container for this "essence." Yet this is to
ignore the fact that we experience and know everything (including God)
in a bodily way. We eat, weep, breathe, laugh, pray, sleep, and fight
with our bodies. Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in a marriage.
Try telling the bride and groom on their wedding night that the
"highest" form of love is purely "spiritual" in the sense of
disembodiment. And, of course, the seal on the goodness of our physical
humanity is the Resurrection of Christ Himself, whose body is not
disposed of but transfigured and glorified.
On the other hand, those who exalt the physical side of the human
person at the expense of the spiritual are also missing something
vital. Human beings are more than unusually clever pieces of meat.
Contra Carl Sagan, they're more than just "star stuff." They are
somehow more than the sum of their material parts. As St. Thomas tells
us, the soul is the form of the body, the animating principle made
directly by God.
At this point certain Christians may object, "But doesn't Scripture
divide us into body, soul, and spirit? And isn't the spirit what
matters to God?" Well, yes and no. For the purpose of making
rational, descriptive distinctions within the human person, the three
are indeed distinguished (1 Thes 4:23). But Scripture also makes clear
that to really divide these aspects of the human being from one another
is not the intention of God. Why? Because the technical term for the
division of body and soul is not "purity" but "death" (yielding
a corpse and a ghost). And as the whole New Testament bears witness,
it's precisely this terrible division of body and soul that the risen
incarnate Lord came to heal.
By biblical lights, human beings are best described as ensouled bodies
or embodied souls. Accordingly, the creation of human life is best
described as the raising of nature to personhood by the creative act of
the Love who is God. In this, there's a sort of shadow of the
Incarnation of Love Himself. For just as the Incarnation proceeds-as
the Athanasian creed states-"not by the conversion of the Godhead
into flesh, but by the taking up of the manhood into God," so in the
creation of every human life, subhuman nature ("dust" in Old
Testament-speak) is "taken up" to participate in personhood.
The key idea here is the old Thomist maxim, "Grace does not destroy
nature but perfects it." Thus in the creation of every person, atoms
are raised to participate in molecular existence, yet remain atoms.
Molecules are raised to participate in organic chemistry, yet remain
molecules. Organic chemicals are raised to participate in biological
processes, yet remain organic chemicals. And so on as single-celled
life is raised to participate in multi-cellular life, and
multi-cellular life is raised to participate in the life of a human
being. Grace does not spiritualize nature into the ether, but rather
perfects and elevates nature while leaving it fully natural. We are
dust. Yet this dust is-not merely contains-a person.
Given that, the question, "What is God up to in creating human
beings?" can be answered this way: He is raising nature to human
personhood with the ultimate aim (in Christ) of raising human persons
toward supernatural union with Himself and with other glorified
creatures. We are intended to participate-neither as mere animals nor
as mere "spiritual" wraiths but as fully human beings-in the
dynamic life of the Blessed Trinity, wherein the love between the
Father and the Son eternally bears fruit in the Person of the Holy
Spirit. In short, we are made for love and fruitfulness. That is the
scriptural witness. And by a strange coincidence, it's also the
teaching of the Magisterium.
The process of raising creation to personhood happens not by the waving
of magic wands, according to Scripture, but through created agents
(particularly human beings) so that all creation may be completed and
healed. That's the meaning of all that business in Paul's epistles
about being "co-laborers with Christ." Thus, our actions assume a
lawful place in the creative will of God if, in whatever great or small
way, they cooperate in this creative process of love and fruitfulness
according to God's order.
We see this creative cooperation with God's love and fruitfulness
aimed at completion in many ways. For example, as an Evangelical I was
taught to recognize it when natural human life is raised to union with
God through faith in Jesus Christ. Here, I understood clearly, is grace
raising nature par excellence. But I came to see that the same
principle holds in all areas of human life as well.
For example: We fall in love, but instead of simply scarfing up sex and
moving on to greener pastures in unreflective bovine detachment, we
raise sexuality to a higher level by willingly binding ourselves in
committed, covenantal love with wife or husband. In so doing, we
cooperate with grace in completing ourselves and our spouse according
to God's word that says, "It is not good for man to be alone."
Likewise, the completion of this union of love typically results in our
cooperation with God's ordained method for raising created
sub-personal nature (sperm and egg) to personhood (at conception).
After this, we assist in the sustenance, nurturing, beautifying, and
fulfillment of human nature. This is the reason we "interfere" with
human life by giving Junior food, lullabies, education, and a warm bed
instead of leaving him to the elements.
Moreover, the fruitfulness that issues in completion extends even
further. Our love of fruitfulness is also why we dye hair, pierce ears,
put on makeup, do scientific research, sculpt works of art, and compose
poetry. It is why we assist in the perfection of non-human nature by
"tending the Garden" as our First Parents were commissioned to do.
It is why we trim the hedges, breed hardier dogs, plant petunias,
design comfortable furniture, and create the wheel. All these and a
billion others are acts of cooperative completion through which God
makes us loving and fruitful stewards of the earth, including that bit
of earth called our neighbor.
The second way we help grace perfect nature is by cooperating with God
in healing the effects of the Fall of both humans and superhuman
created spirits. This is why we put surgeons' scalpels and milk of
magnesia into human bodies, practice prudence by putting on sunblock,
and take antibiotics. It is also why we take dogs to the vet, pick up
litter, clean Lake Erie, send aid to Katrina victims, protest genocide
in Darfur, repent our sins, forgive our enemies, pray "lead us not
into temptation but deliver us from evil," and write peevish letters
to our senator about the deficit.
Roughly speaking, then, our role as human beings is-in big and small
ways-to be about the business of perfecting, nurturing, and enhancing
by grace a creation intended for beatitude. Such "interference" on
our part isn't interference at all, but the right and proper
cooperative office of human beings as children of God and high priests
and stewards of creation. "For the creation waits in eager
expectation for the sons of God to be revealed...in hope that the
creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought
into the glorious freedom of the children of God" (Rom 8:19-21).
So the scriptural witness is this: Whatever helps nature (especially
human nature) achieve the end for which it is created (namely bounty,
beauty, love, and beatitude) and cooperates with God by raising nature
to personhood and union with Him (prudently and within the natural
bounds of God's twin purposes of love and fruitfulness) is the very
definition of "good."
Conversely, a strong working definition of sin is this: The heart of
sin is to treat persons like things and things like persons. To act
thus is to run the film of creation backwards, to wrench the universe
hard astern. We treat persons like things through sins like pride,
lust, slavery, and murder; we treat things like persons through sins
like idolatry, greed, gluttony, and avarice.
Such things truly are interference. For their purpose, in one way or
another, is to thwart and defeat God's will for love and fruitfulness
while attempting to wring the juice out of creation and consume it for
our own pleasure and power. Such an action constitutes a fundamentally
selfish refusal to cooperate with God and a determination to exploit or
destroy His creation if it bars our will to pleasure and power. Such a
choice is, by its very nature, a denial of love and fruitfulness.
So how does all this affect real life? Well, if we really believe that
we live in an incarnational, created universe, we know as a matter of
first principles that since nature isn't meant to be subject to the
mere whim of man irrespective of God's purpose, still less is human
nature. Thus, any medical fidgeting with human life must be done
(insofar as we wish to avoid evil) not on the basis of our
"comfort" but on the basis of finding the way by which our science
(like everything else we do) is ordered to cooperate with God's call
to raise nature to personhood according to His terms of love and
fruitfulness. Such a criterion has the very practical effect of saving
molecular biology from the Luddites and allowing it to pursue its
promise of doing some very beautiful works of both completion (by
gaining knowledge of the creation) and healing of people who suffer
from various genetic lesions. As long as it does its work without
causing the death or exploitation of persons, it's in accord with the
Good.
But molecular biology (galvanized by the modern spirit of "We can,
therefore we will") not only promises, it threatens. So, for
instance, there's enormous pressure to create disposable embryos
artificially conceived solely for the purpose of research. In the
not-so-distant future, we will learn how to initiate conception in any
nucleic tissue sample handy, not just egg and sperm. Once this becomes
a reality, it would enable the creation of virtually limitless numbers
of test-tube embryos for research use as "fetal harvesting
material." Here the standard of "comfort" is woefully inadequate
to the challenge of deciding what's good and evil.
But revelation gives us very clear grounds to condemn and forbid this
satanic parody of anti-creation. For it's nothing other than the
grave sin of reducing persons to cash-crop things in the very act of
raising cellular nature to personhood via artificial conception. It
would be to enact what T. S. Eliot calls the "greatest treason" by
doing the right thing (raising nature to personhood) for the profoundly
wrong reason of wrenching human life out of the divine context of love
and fruitfulness and making a person into a consumable commodity.
A worldview rooted in the recognition of creation and incarnation can,
therefore, speak with great strength. It can not only bless the right
use of technology (when it's used to cooperate with love and
fruitfulness), but it can also condemn it with authority should it
abusively and violently interfere with the most primal human forms of
love and fruitfulness (between husband and wife, mother and child,
healer and patient, powerful and powerless, Creator and creature) in
order to subject the natural processes of human reproduction to our
will. It can see such abuse for what it is: a twisted parody of God's
loving creative will, since the sole purpose of this interference is to
discard love (by deftly cutting the embryo away from all such
relationships) and twist fruitfulness into the harvesting of a ripening
human life for consumption as a "tissue source." Such a sin is to
divorce nature from grace, to thwart the purposes of God in creation,
to treat persons like things, and to exalt the things of power and
money over persons.
So far, so good. I had been able to come up with some biblically sound
"rules of thumb" for discerning how to navigate the morality of
biotechnology. But in so doing I had to face the disastrous failure of
my own opinions on contraception. For there's no way to justify
artificial contraception that doesn't also justify destroying the
ancient Christian sacramental linkage of sex to love and fruitfulness,
which undergirds any sane ethic toward human life.
After all, if it's wrong to interfere with nature by exalting fat
research endowments and "harvest" profits over cooperation with
God, how was it right to exalt my own pleasure and autonomy over it? I
didn't, of course, ask this question out of a sudden puritanical fear
of sexual pleasure. Rather, I did so out of a newfound realization of
sex as a sacramental participation in the creative, loving, and
fruitful life of the Blessed Trinity (a notion strangely anticipated by
that dusty old Humanae Vitae). With my eye on Paul's comment that I
had been "bought with a price" (1 Cor 6:19-20), and my mind filled
with the colossal Catholic picture of the call to love with total
abandon (like Christ), I felt a growing uneasiness with the standard
modern bafflegab that My Body Is My Own. For it suddenly became very
difficult to see such chatter as referring to anything other than
separating the human person from communion with God and neighbor. I
came to the awareness that, in translation, My Body Is My Own usually
meant, "There's no difference whatsoever between how we ought to
address the police and how we ought to address our lover."
For love (like sex) is almost private, and very rightly so. Yet if we
tell our lover My Body Is My Own, in the sense that we mean it in
modern political discourse addressed to the state, we have shot love
dead. As a barrier against abuse, rape, and unjust laws against
interracial or interreligious marriages, such a slogan is perfectly
valid. But when it comes to talking about love (the real
self-surrendering love of both partners to each other and to God), talk
of rights no longer holds absolute sway. A bond of union and a
willingness to bow to the other in mutual submission and self-sacrifice
must be there for love to exist in the fullest Christian sense.
And this is precisely what artificial contraception belies. It is
fingers crossed behind the back, an escape clause from the promise of
full commitment. It is autonomy (from the other), power (over our
child-free future), and a demand that our right to pleasure remain
unencumbered by any "extraneous" business about love and
fruitfulness. Its purpose is to separate man and woman, parents and
children, God's will and our will. Its goal is to strip-mine the gold
of pleasure from the sacramental union of love and fruitfulness,
enthrone autonomy and pleasure as the main thing sex is about, and
declare love and fruitfulness "optional" rather than that which
revelation declares them to be: the very heart of reality.
And quite successfully, too. For the vast majority of our culture is
still quite prepared to intone-as I once did-the tired old singsong
that the Church "thinks sex is dirty" and fears the very idea of
sexual pleasure is too wicked for words. "That's why the Church
hates birth control," says our culture, "It wants people to pay for
a tumble under the sheets and not just get away with all that fun
scot-free." Yet, ironically, those who say this simply prove the
Church's critique of our culture. For to assert that commitment and
parenthood are "payment" is to assert one's own deeply held
belief that love and fruitfulness are a ball and chain, and the real
point of life is autonomy and pleasure. It is precisely this
fundamental assumption (an assumption in direct antithesis to the heart
of revelation) that the modern mind cannot even bring itself to
question.
Yet such an assumption must be questioned sooner or later, since the
whole purpose of a life absorbed in the pursuit of autonomy and
pleasure is to move precisely in the direction that reality does not
go. For instead of cooperating with the Creator in the perfection of
nature and the raising of nature to personhood, the whole goal of
artificial contraception and the autonomous, pleasure-centered mindset
behind it is simply to treat nature as if it were ours (thus reducing
nature's Blessed Creator to the status of "thinghood") and to
treat human beings like things by reducing them to a set of biological
processes. And, as history bears abundant testimony, this decision to
subject persons to My Pleasure and Autonomy doesn't stop with mere
contraception. It inexorably (and swiftly) leads to an abortion
mentality in which the child is reduced to a thing called a fetus, and
the fetus is reduced to a disposable commodity. In our country, this
precipitous slide took only eight years, from Griswold to Roe.
At this point, the Zeitgeist replies, "So! You think women should do
nothing but breed, do you?" Well, no, not really. It simply doesn't
follow that because we are obliged to cooperate with God that we're
therefore obliged to have as many children as possible, regardless of
the consequences. Cooperating with God means "cooperating with
God," not "bearing 26 children in a row." It means openness to
His love and fruitfulness. It means not crossing our fingers behind our
backs when we say, "I give all of myself to you" (which is what the
act of sex intrinsically means). It means honoring the created nature
God has made, not only with respect to natural fertility, but with
respect to natural infertility as well. For it's perfectly legitimate
(if one has, for instance, a limited income) to chart a woman's
natural periods of infertility and (if one wishes to avoid pregnancy)
restrain one's sexual appetite for a day or two till this
God-created, God-given infertility begins.
Why is that different from artificial contraception? Because it's
cooperation, not interference. That is, it isn't an attempt to thwart
God's creative purposes in order to wrench sexual pleasure and
personal autonomy out of the sacramental context in which God created
it. It is instead an attempt to say yes to God's gift of sex and
power in the context which He has given (including the natural cycles
of fertility and infertility).
My mind, therefore, has changed concerning the Church's sexual ethic.
More and more, I find it as difficult to separate Her sacramental view
of the universe from my so-called private life as it is to separate my
"private life" from my family and my God. And as I look at the
wasteland of millennial American culture, it becomes increasingly clear
to me that the modern technological impulse that created the idol of
"reproductive rights" has taken a profoundly disastrous turn in its
unshakable faith that the fundamental human problems are technological,
not moral and spiritual. To treat the enormous sacramental mystery of
sexuality like a plumbing problem is preposterously simple-minded. To
fail to see the immensity of sex as one of our deepest participations
in the creative work of God is myopic in the extreme.
Yet the unalterable fact remains (according to revelation) that the
goal of the universe is love and fruitfulness "in accordance with
nature and grace" (since God is the Maker of both). It is not to skim
off pleasure and autonomy and dispose of love and fruitfulness as
troublesome and useless dross. We are far too important, and our life
and love far too precious a sacrament, to be taken so lightly and
treated so disposably. That is why my wife and I, as partners in the
sacrament of marriage, have chosen to remain open to the love and
fruitfulness of God here, as we have sought to do in all the other
areas of our lives. That is also why I now pray that God will grant us
all a deeper vision of His calling and show us again the depth of His
love and fruitfulness in every aspect of our lives. May He teach us
anew the dance of humility, joy, and creativity in the land of the
Trinity, where all our loves reside. And may we, who have traded our
dignity for pride and our joy for pleasure, return in humility, love,
and fruitfulness to the steps of that Great Dance.
Mark P. Shea is the senior editor for www.CatholicExchange.com.
anarc...@gmail.com
pretty obvious.
Johnny
Seems to me the pro-choicers who are creating all these breast cancer cases
are the real misogynists.
Now they are begging for money, and this while everyone knows the
pharmaceutical firms are making so much money they should pay for the
damages they caused in their for-profit businesses already.
anarc...@gmail.com
However, it's not up to you to dictate to a lot of other
people how to live their lives, including the reproductive
functions of their bodies.
The idea that half the human race should be enslaved
to its reproductive tract is passé, fortunately, and all
that is left to do is call it by its name.
The Chief Instigator
>1. misogyny, misogynism -- (hatred of women)
>Seems to me the pro-choicers who are creating all these breast cancer cases
>are the real misogynists.
Could you quit mainlining meth long enough to make sense? Being pro-choice
doesn't cause breast cancer.
>Now they are begging for money, and this while everyone knows the
>pharmaceutical firms are making so much money they should pay for the
>damages they caused in their for-profit businesses already.
...as long as you get the money YOU demand, eh?
Kindly piss up a rope, Wentzky...and get your mentally ill ass back to the
Home. Now.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: October 2006, opponent/venue/time TBA
Ray Fischer
>1. misogyny, misogynism -- (hatred of women)
>
>Seems to me the pro-choicers who are creating all these breast cancer cases
>are the real misogynists.
Abortion has nothing to do with breast cancer, lunatic. You're just
using the lie to justify more of your hate.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Johnny
<anarc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147621763.8...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
> 1. misogyny, misogynism -- (hatred of women)
>
> Seems to me the pro-choicers who are creating all these breast cancer
> cases
> are the real misogynists.
> Now they are begging for money, and this while everyone knows the
> pharmaceutical firms are making so much money they should pay for the
> damages they caused in their for-profit businesses already.
However, it's not up to you to dictate to a lot of other
people how to live their lives, including the reproductive
functions of their bodies.
>What has that to do with product liability?
The idea that half the human race should be enslaved
to its reproductive tract is passé, fortunately, and all
that is left to do is call it by its name.
>Enslaving men in their reproductive capacity to Pro-Choice is somehow fair
>to men and women's reproductive >abilities?
Johnny
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4467648e$0$65430$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> Johnny <wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote:
>>1. misogyny, misogynism -- (hatred of women)
>>
>>Seems to me the pro-choicers who are creating all these breast cancer
>>cases
>>are the real misogynists.
>
> Abortion has nothing to do with breast cancer, lunatic. You're just
> using the lie to justify more of your hate.
Pro-Choice has much to do with using birth control.
Breast cancer has much to do with Pro-Choice.
--sexkitten--
http://www.breastcancer.org/research_diet_062702.html
Birth Control Pills Do Not Increase Breast Cancer Risk
Background and Importance of the study: Oral contraceptives —also known
as birth control pills or just "the pill"—are the second most popular
method of birth control in the United States after sterilization.
Birth control pills are very effective at preventing unwanted pregnancy.
Past research has also shown that the pill helps protect women against
ovarian and uterine cancer. Yet many women have long feared that birth
control pills pose health risks, including an increase in the risk of
breast cancer.
Now a large, well-designed study provides solid evidence that birth
control pills do NOT increase the risk of breast cancer. This finding is
true even in women who have taken the pill for a long time and for women
with a family history of breast cancer.
Words on this page Words on this Page
* ovarian cancer
* estrogen
* menopause
* endometrial cancer
The study showed no increase in breast cancer risk even among women who
started using the pill when they were young. This is important because
large numbers of American women who took birth control pills years ago
are now reaching the age when breast cancer risk increases. For these
women, it is reassuring to know that having taken the pill will not add
to their breast cancer risk.
--
--sexkitten--
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which
feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget
that ye were our countrymen."
-- Samuel Adams, 1776"
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
magilla
What a reprehensible liar you are.
There is absolutely NO link between birth control and breast cancer, or
between abortion and breast cancer. It is a miserable tactic to prevent
women from taking control of their lives. You're a pathetic throwback.
Chris
anarc...@gmail.com
If we're talking about birth control pills, read
http://www.breastcancer.org/research_diet_062702.html
and
http://www.susanlovemd.com/faq/birth/birth-control-pill.html
As far as I know there is no statistical connection
between any other form of birth control, including abortion,
abstinence, IUDs, condoms, etc. etc. etc., and breast
cancer. However, the government, under the influence
of the woman-hating, sex-hating, death-loving Christian
groups which support it, are trying to suppress the facts:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9F0DE7D91F39F935A15752C1A9649C8B63
There is some evidence that pregnancy reduces the
risk of breast cancer, but if this is taken to be signficant
it means that abstinence also "causes" it.
Johnny
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446782be$0$5509$b9f6...@news.newsdemon.com...
> Johnny wrote:
>
>> "Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>> news:4467648e$0$65430$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>>
>>>Johnny <wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>1. misogyny, misogynism -- (hatred of women)
>>>>
>>>>Seems to me the pro-choicers who are creating all these breast cancer
>>>>cases
>>>>are the real misogynists.
>>>
>>>Abortion has nothing to do with breast cancer, lunatic. You're just
>>>using the lie to justify more of your hate.
>>
>>
>> Pro-Choice has much to do with using birth control.
>> Breast cancer has much to do with Pro-Choice.
>
> http://www.breastcancer.org/research_diet_062702.html
>
> Birth Control Pills Do Not Increase Breast Cancer Risk
>
> birth control pills or just "the pill"-are the second most popular method
>
> Birth control pills are very effective at preventing unwanted pregnancy.
> Past research has also shown that the pill helps protect women against
> ovarian and uterine cancer. Yet many women have long feared that birth
> control pills pose health risks, including an increase in the risk of
> breast cancer.
>
> Now a large, well-designed study provides solid evidence that birth
> control pills do NOT increase the risk of breast cancer. This finding is
> true even in women who have taken the pill for a long time and for women
> with a family history of breast cancer.
> Words on this page Words on this Page
>
> * ovarian cancer
> * estrogen
> * menopause
> * endometrial cancer
>
> The study showed no increase in breast cancer risk even among women who
> started using the pill when they were young. This is important because
> large numbers of American women who took birth control pills years ago are
> now reaching the age when breast cancer risk increases. For these women,
> it is reassuring to know that having taken the pill will not add to their
> breast cancer risk.
Can you say "conflict of interest"?
The Chief Instigator
Got a problem with that?
>Breast cancer has much to do with Pro-Choice.
You're a cackling loon, Wentzky. Keep up the good work of refuting your
lunatic assertions.
Johnny
"magilla" <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147634389....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
You are still nothing more than a profiteering money mongrel and pimp and
adultery promoter and fornication promoter and secretive non-social ingrate
who likes to hide behind lies and well-controlled studies designed to
maintain your $$ stream while you neglect the justice mandate that orders
you to pay for your own crimes against other people.
There is absolutely a link between every dead fetus and the people who
killed it and the people who created it.
Too bad, in your case, that that link has kicked your ungoldy ass and it
still does, huh?
You will never be able to overcome your lack of love which you show to other
people.
Since you failed to love someone first it si entirely just and fair to fail
to love you.
Sorry you didn't confess your evil acts againt others that caused them harm.
And, the continued evils you support that cause harm to others very well
could be your undoing.
--sexkitten--
Can you say "Bullshit, Johnny"?
--
--sexkitten--
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which
feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget
that ye were our countrymen."
-- Samuel Adams, 1776"
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
The Chief Instigator
>"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:446782be$0$5509$b9f6...@news.newsdemon.com...
[...]
>> The study showed no increase in breast cancer risk even among women who
>> started using the pill when they were young. This is important because
>> large numbers of American women who took birth control pills years ago are
>> now reaching the age when breast cancer risk increases. For these women,
>> it is reassuring to know that having taken the pill will not add to their
>> breast cancer risk.
>Can you say "conflict of interest"?
Can you say "John D. Wentzky is an incoherent psychotic"? That appears to be
a truthful statement, in my opinion.
Ray Fischer
>> The study showed no increase in breast cancer risk even among women who
>> started using the pill when they were young. This is important because
>> large numbers of American women who took birth control pills years ago are
>> now reaching the age when breast cancer risk increases. For these women,
>> it is reassuring to know that having taken the pill will not add to their
>> breast cancer risk.
>
>Can you say "conflict of interest"?
Can you say "whacked-out asshole"?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>
>"magilla" <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1147634389....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Johnny wrote:
>>> "Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>> news:4467648e$0$65430$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>>> > Johnny <wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote:
>>> >>1. misogyny, misogynism -- (hatred of women)
>>> >>
>>> >>Seems to me the pro-choicers who are creating all these breast cancer
>>> >>cases
>>> >>are the real misogynists.
>>> >
>>> > Abortion has nothing to do with breast cancer, lunatic. You're just
>>> > using the lie to justify more of your hate.
>>>
>>> Pro-Choice has much to do with using birth control.
>>> Breast cancer has much to do with Pro-Choice.
>>
>> What a reprehensible liar you are.
>>
>> There is absolutely NO link between birth control and breast cancer, or
>> between abortion and breast cancer. It is a miserable tactic to prevent
>> women from taking control of their lives. You're a pathetic throwback.
>
>You are still nothing more than a profiteering money mongrel and pimp and
You're an evil asshole who just wants to see people die.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
The Chief Instigator
>"magilla" <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1147634389....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> Johnny wrote:
>>> "Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>> news:4467648e$0$65430$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>>> > Johnny <wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote:
>>> >>1. misogyny, misogynism -- (hatred of women)
>>> >>Seems to me the pro-choicers who are creating all these breast cancer
>>> >>cases are the real misogynists.
>>> > Abortion has nothing to do with breast cancer, lunatic. You're just
>>> > using the lie to justify more of your hate.
>>> Pro-Choice has much to do with using birth control.
>>> Breast cancer has much to do with Pro-Choice.
>> What a reprehensible liar you are.
>> There is absolutely NO link between birth control and breast cancer, or
>> between abortion and breast cancer. It is a miserable tactic to prevent
>> women from taking control of their lives. You're a pathetic throwback.
>You are still nothing more than a profiteering money mongrel and pimp and
>adultery promoter and fornication promoter and secretive non-social ingrate
>who likes to hide behind lies and well-controlled studies designed to
>maintain your $$ stream while you neglect the justice mandate that orders you
>to pay for your own crimes against other people.
Prove it, and quit crapping into religious newsgroups whose participants
couldn't care less about your mental defects.
Martin
> <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1147621763.8...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Johnny wrote:
>> 1. misogyny, misogynism -- (hatred of women)
>>
>> Seems to me the pro-choicers who are creating all these breast cancer
>> cases
>> are the real misogynists.
>> Now they are begging for money, and this while everyone knows the
>> pharmaceutical firms are making so much money they should pay for the
>> damages they caused in their for-profit businesses already.
>
> However, it's not up to you to dictate to a lot of other
> people how to live their lives, including the reproductive
> functions of their bodies.
Jesus H christ on a bike! He finally gets it.
One more leap and he'll realise it's not his either.
Kahoutek
anarc...@gmail.com wrote:
> This one doesn't require a lot of thought. The answer is
> pretty obvious.
>
spew reams of its egomaniacal prose on this topic, though.
Revelatory in one sense (as in: who continues to blare).
A.
Kahoutek
And because they can't get it, and are constitutionally incapable
of ever getting it, they will continue to hate.
They'll also continue to tell us that their hate is "for our good."
You are of course correct that their words make no difference.
A.
Kahoutek
Yes, but why so many on this board?
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net
Malcolm
"magilla" <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote
> What a reprehensible liar you are.
>
> There is absolutely NO link between birth control and breast cancer, or
> between abortion and breast cancer. It is a miserable tactic to prevent
> women from taking control of their lives. You're a pathetic throwback.
>
Most cancers have complex causes and links to all types of things. We know
that childlessness is a risk factor for breast cancer, for example. It is
impossible that artifiically manipulating hormone levels would have no
effect. In fact the Pill may be protective, whilst abortion may be a risk
factor.
The real question is whether these risks are high enough to warrant
recommending changes to behaviour, on those grounds alone.
--
Buy my book 12 Common Atheist Arguments (refuted)
$1.25 download or $7.20 paper, available www.lulu.com/bgy1mm
Ray Fischer
>> What a reprehensible liar you are.
>>
>> There is absolutely NO link between birth control and breast cancer, or
>> between abortion and breast cancer. It is a miserable tactic to prevent
>> women from taking control of their lives. You're a pathetic throwback.
>>
>That's not true.
Yes, it is.
>Most cancers have complex causes and links to all types of things. We know
>that childlessness is a risk factor for breast cancer, for example. It is
>impossible that artifiically manipulating hormone levels would have no
>effect.
The pro-liar pushes the usual anti-woman lies in order to
further his corrupt agenda.
Yes, it's possible, and indeed it may even REDUCE the likelihood of
cancer.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
anarc...@gmail.com
If childlessness is a risk factor for breast cancer, then we can
say that abstinence causes cancer.
Johnny
"Martin" <use...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote in message
news:446799f9$0$693$fa0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
I see you didn't follow the trail correctly.
> One more leap and he'll realise it's not his either.
Learning to read in newsgroups is something you need to grasp.
The Chief Instigator
>"Martin" <use...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:446799f9$0$693$fa0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>> Johnny wrote:
>>> <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1147621763.8...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> Johnny wrote:
>>>> 1. misogyny, misogynism -- (hatred of women)
>>>> Seems to me the pro-choicers who are creating all these breast cancer
>>>> cases are the real misogynists. Now they are begging for money, and this
>>>> while everyone knows the pharmaceutical firms are making so much money
>>>> they should pay for the damages they caused in their for-profit
>>>> businesses already.
>>> However, it's not up to you to dictate to a lot of other
>>> people how to live their lives, including the reproductive
>>> functions of their bodies.
>> Jesus H christ on a bike! He finally gets it.
>I see you didn't follow the trail correctly.
...because you screwed it up.
>> One more leap and he'll realise it's not his either.
>Learning to read in newsgroups is something you need to grasp.
Is that why you've never learned to do as you demand of others? (I saw the
original, and you mangled it. I know you're too psychotic to pay attention to
the little chevrons, but they *do* have a purpose.)
Johnny
"The Chief Instigator" <pat...@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkfyjc...@fnord.io.com...
> "Johnny" <wxpprof...@msn.com> writes:
>
>>"Martin" <use...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:446799f9$0$693$fa0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>>> Johnny wrote:
>>>> <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1147621763.8...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Johnny wrote:
>>>>> 1. misogyny, misogynism -- (hatred of women)
>
>>>>> Seems to me the pro-choicers who are creating all these breast cancer
>>>>> cases are the real misogynists. Now they are begging for money, and
>>>>> this
>>>>> while everyone knows the pharmaceutical firms are making so much money
>>>>> they should pay for the damages they caused in their for-profit
>>>>> businesses already.
>
>>>> However, it's not up to you to dictate to a lot of other
>>>> people how to live their lives, including the reproductive
>>>> functions of their bodies.
>
>>> Jesus H christ on a bike! He finally gets it.
>
>>I see you didn't follow the trail correctly.
>
> ...because you screwed it up.
anarcissie sent the post that screwed up the trail.
>>> One more leap and he'll realise it's not his either.
>
>>Learning to read in newsgroups is something you need to grasp.
>
> Is that why you've never learned to do as you demand of others? (I saw
> the
> original, and you mangled it. I know you're too psychotic to pay
> attention to
> the little chevrons, but they *do* have a purpose.)
Nah. anarcissie's post is the post that got the thread off kilter.
Do some research instead of striking out so fast and making a fool outa
yourself.
If you weren't so quick to lash out without proof you wouldn't look like
such a fool.
And, to think you lashed out when there is proof to show you are wrong.
brique
Kahoutek <atalanta....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147643007.6...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Well, that's what happens when you include
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic in the cross-posting......
> >
> > --
> > Ray Fischer
> > rfis...@sonic.net
>
brique
Johnny <wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:qfL9g.31836$QU3....@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
Dear Johnny, cancer happens, even amongst women who have never used
contraception, or even never had sex.It is rarely linked to the sufferers
religious or political beliefs. I say rarely, because I do recall reading, a
long time ago, a report on the prevalenceof womb cancer amongst celibate
women and nuns in particular.
BTW, did you know your posting name is also slang for a condom?
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting Ass
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -2437 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush fuck up my country: Worthless
-----
"Ahhhhhh, yessssssss, ummmmmmm - Alito, Alito, Alito"
-duke (duck...@cox.net), aka PedophilEarl J Weber, 59
year old mateless, heirless biological failure
of Afton Oaks Apartment, Baton Rouge,who pussied
out of the Vietnam draft, showing his gay side
despite his avowed anti-gay bigotry
Contact duke's priest and ask
him why duke is such a racist:
http://www.stpatrickbr.org/
Father Gerard "Jerry" Martin
stpatrickbr<AT>bellsouth<DOT>net
Saint Patrick Catholic Church
12424 Brogdon Lane
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70816
brique
Mmmm... bit of judgmenting going on here, aren't good christians supposed to
leave that to their god? Not a lot of of loving thy neighbour either.
Distinct lack of forgiving other people their tresspasses too. Some may
detect a paucity of cheek-turning as well.
As for the last passage, wasn't there somethign about motes and beams too?
The Chief Instigator
>"The Chief Instigator" <pat...@io.com> wrote in message
>news:szkfyjc...@fnord.io.com...
>> "Johnny" <wxpprof...@msn.com> writes:
>>>"Martin" <use...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:446799f9$0$693$fa0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>>>> Johnny wrote:
>>>>> <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1147621763.8...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> Johnny wrote:
>>>>>> 1. misogyny, misogynism -- (hatred of women)
>>>>>> Seems to me the pro-choicers who are creating all these breast cancer
>>>>>> cases are the real misogynists. Now they are begging for money, and
>>>>>> this while everyone knows the pharmaceutical firms are making so much
>>>>>> money they should pay for the damages they caused in their for-profit
>>>>>> businesses already.
>>>>> However, it's not up to you to dictate to a lot of other
>>>>> people how to live their lives, including the reproductive
>>>>> functions of their bodies.
>>>> Jesus H christ on a bike! He finally gets it.
>>>I see you didn't follow the trail correctly.
>> ...because you screwed it up.
>Oh, no. anarcissie sent the post that screwed up the trail.
Bullshit. His original article is still around, and it was formatted
properly. The first screw-up occured in YOUR reply. You do the math.
>>>> One more leap and he'll realise it's not his either.
>>>Learning to read in newsgroups is something you need to grasp.
>> Is that why you've never learned to do as you demand of others? (I saw
>> the
>> original, and you mangled it. I know you're too psychotic to pay
>> attention to
>> the little chevrons, but they *do* have a purpose.)
>Nah. anarcissie's post is the post that got the thread off kilter.
>Do some research instead of striking out so fast and making a fool outa
>yourself.
>If you weren't so quick to lash out without proof you wouldn't look like
>such a fool.
>And, to think you lashed out when there is proof to show you are wrong.
I just went back up the thread to his original post...and you're nailed to the
wall, son.
Johnny
You're wrong. PLH.
I'm talking about his/her reply to me.
Maybe you forgot I majored in Math.
>>>>> One more leap and he'll realise it's not his either.
>
>>>>Learning to read in newsgroups is something you need to grasp.
>
>>> Is that why you've never learned to do as you demand of others? (I saw
>>> the
>>> original, and you mangled it. I know you're too psychotic to pay
>>> attention to
>>> the little chevrons, but they *do* have a purpose.)
>
>>Nah. anarcissie's post is the post that got the thread off kilter.
>>Do some research instead of striking out so fast and making a fool outa
>>yourself.
>>If you weren't so quick to lash out without proof you wouldn't look like
>>such a fool.
>>And, to think you lashed out when there is proof to show you are wrong.
>
> I just went back up the thread to his original post...and you're nailed to
> the
> wall, son.
You missed.
Par for the course in your case, huh?
Wanna look a bit further to see where the thread went off track?
Johnny
"brique" <briqu...@freeuk.c0m> wrote in message
news:114766887...@damia.uk.clara.net...
If there weren't such a BEAM in your and all Pro-Choicer's and GAYS' eyes
there wouldn't be so many people judging you.
Who do you think God will stand up for?
Do you think it will be you numbskulls who raise so much strife or do you
think it will be those who are sick of your acts against peace and life?
Johnny
"brique" <briqu...@freeuk.c0m> wrote in message
>
> Johnny <wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:qfL9g.31836$QU3....@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>> news:4467648e$0$65430$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>> > Johnny <wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote:
>> >>1. misogyny, misogynism -- (hatred of women)
>> >>
>> >>Seems to me the pro-choicers who are creating all these breast cancer
>> >>cases
>> >>are the real misogynists.
>> >
>> > Abortion has nothing to do with breast cancer, lunatic. You're just
>> > using the lie to justify more of your hate.
>>
>> Pro-Choice has much to do with using birth control.
>> Breast cancer has much to do with Pro-Choice.
>>
>>
>
> Dear Johnny, cancer happens,
Now we see the level of intellectual ability of Pro-Choicers and Gays.
"Shit happens".
LOL!!!!!!!!!
With those idiots being represented in law we are all guaranteed more "Shit"
happening.
The only reason 'shit' happens is because idiots are committing so many
errors.
> even amongst women who have never used
> contraception, or even never had sex.It is rarely linked to the sufferers
> religious or political beliefs. I say rarely, because I do recall reading,
> a
> long time ago, a report on the prevalenceof womb cancer amongst celibate
> women and nuns in particular.
And, what has that to do with Free Exercise of Religion?
I guess it means we are supposed to pay to take care of those women who
suffer such events that took an oath of celibacy so their religious exercise
costs them nothing.
> BTW, did you know your posting name is also slang for a condom?
Nah, and actually I would rather it be slang for seed rather than a
prophylactic device which prevents seed from being planted or growing or
multiplying.
Antonio Forza
<soundof...@hoshmail.com> wrote:
>Cooperating with the Creator: Birth Control and the Church
The true reason is simple: Greed for future power, contributions, and
market share.
The catholic church wants people within its sphere of influence to
create more people who are likely to also remain within its sphere of
linfluence.
The catholic church cares not that human population is spiralling out
of control, and that many of the people who follow its edicts are
impoverished, and would benefit greatly by the use of birth control.
If you want to understand the truth behind the "teachings" of the
catholic church, just follow the money, and all will become clear.
--
Mental Anarchy - Free Your Mind
http://mentalanarchy.com
--
anarc...@gmail.com
> Dear Johnny, cancer happens, even amongst women who have never used
> contraception, or even never had sex.It is rarely linked to the sufferers
> religious or political beliefs. I say rarely, because I do recall reading, a
> long time ago, a report on the prevalenceof womb cancer amongst celibate
> women and nuns in particular.
There is a some evidence that childbirth reduces the risk
of breast cancer, so abstinence is a risk factor in the same
sense that birth control may be a risk factor. Oddly, the
Anti-Sex League never mentions this.
The Chief Instigator
Maybe you forgot you're an insane idiot. Anyone with sense enough to know how
to operate their newsreader can walk back up the thread and see that YOU
mangled it in your very first response.
>>>>>> One more leap and he'll realise it's not his either.
>>>>>Learning to read in newsgroups is something you need to grasp.
>>>> Is that why you've never learned to do as you demand of others? (I saw
>>>> the original, and you mangled it. I know you're too psychotic to pay
>>>> attention to the little chevrons, but they *do* have a purpose.)
>>>Nah. anarcissie's post is the post that got the thread off kilter. Do some
>>>research instead of striking out so fast and making a fool outa yourself.
>>>If you weren't so quick to lash out without proof you wouldn't look like
>>>such a fool. And, to think you lashed out when there is proof to show you
>>>are wrong.
>> I just went back up the thread to his original post...and you're nailed to
>> the wall, son.
>You missed.
Pure Wentzkian bullshit:
anarcissie's original:
-----start-----
From nobody Mon May 15 01:02:03 2006
Path: border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: anarc...@gmail.com
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic,alt.atheism,alt.abortion,alt.anarchism,alt.messianic
Subject: Misogyny: Why Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control
Date: 14 May 2006 08:49:23 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1147621763.8...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
References: <1147608322....@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
<1147614145.9...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
<9VG9g.42702$Kn4....@bignews2.bellsouth.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 162.83.228.183
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1147621769 21382 127.0.0.1 (14 May 2006 15:49:29 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 15:49:29 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.7.11) Gecko/20050728,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
Injection-Info: j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=162.83.228.183;
posting-account=kFGIEAwAAADMy8vzLZyfHasR0pb0quYn
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic:1369136 alt.atheism:4137422 alt.abortion:939438 alt.anarchism:246979 alt.messianic:477806
Johnny wrote:
> 1. misogyny, misogynism -- (hatred of women)
>
> Seems to me the pro-choicers who are creating all these breast cancer cas=
es
> are the real misogynists.
> Now they are begging for money, and this while everyone knows the
> pharmaceutical firms are making so much money they should pay for the
> damages they caused in their for-profit businesses already.
However, it's not up to you to dictate to a lot of other
people how to live their lives, including the reproductive
functions of their bodies.
The idea that half the human race should be enslaved
to its reproductive tract is pass=E9, fortunately, and all
that is left to do is call it by its name.
------end------
That one's formatted properly: his words are unprefaced, and yours have the
single chevron. Now, look at the start of your response:
-----start-----
From nobody Mon May 15 01:02:13 2006
Path: border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!69.28.186.75.MISMATCH!hwmnpeer01.lga!hwmedia!news.highwinds-media.com!bigfeed2.bellsouth.net!bigfeed.bellsouth.net!bignumber.bellsouth.net!news.bellsouth.net!bignews8.bellsouth.net.POSTED!3c377248!not-for-mail
From: "Johnny" <wxpprof...@msn.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic,alt.atheism,alt.abortion,alt.anarchism,alt.messianic
References: <1147608322....@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1147614145.9...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <9VG9g.42702$Kn4....@bignews2.bellsouth.net> <1147621763.8...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Misogyny: Why Catholic Church Rejects Birth Control
Message-ID: <reL9g.31835$QU3...@bignews8.bellsouth.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 15:08:07 EDT
Organization: BellSouth Internet Group
Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 15:08:12 -0400
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic:1369204 alt.atheism:4137661 alt.abortion:939501 alt.anarchism:246988 alt.messianic:477820
<anarc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147621763.8...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
> 1. misogyny, misogynism -- (hatred of women)
>
> Seems to me the pro-choicers who are creating all these breast cancer
> cases
> are the real misogynists.
> Now they are begging for money, and this while everyone knows the
> pharmaceutical firms are making so much money they should pay for the
> damages they caused in their for-profit businesses already.
However, it's not up to you to dictate to a lot of other
people how to live their lives, including the reproductive
functions of their bodies.
>What has that to do with product liability?
The idea that half the human race should be enslaved
to its reproductive tract is passé, fortunately, and all
that is left to do is call it by its name.
>Enslaving men in their reproductive capacity to Pro-Choice is somehow fair
>to men and women's reproductive >abilities?
------end------
Notice that YOUR newsreader didn't insert the chevron before your quote.
If you can't figure that out from comparing the two, that's just more proof
that you're massively stupid. Have your caretakers look at the Message-IDs
and they can verify your screw-up, themselves.
Pr0r3p
You should know by now that presenting facts to Johnny means nothing.
He'd rather continue to lie about you (and everyone else), rather than
accept the fact that he's wrong. Standby for the Wentzky Dance of
Denial.
Jim07D6
A safe, active sex life is not only a sign of good health, it
contributes to good health.
--- Jim07D6
Johnny
Anyone who can follow a post in a newsgroup can see that I added the
necessary symbols to show my words as my words.
>>>>>>> One more leap and he'll realise it's not his either.
>
>>>>>>Learning to read in newsgroups is something you need to grasp.
>
>>>>> Is that why you've never learned to do as you demand of others? (I
>>>>> saw
>>>>> the original, and you mangled it. I know you're too psychotic to pay
>>>>> attention to the little chevrons, but they *do* have a purpose.)
>
>>>>Nah. anarcissie's post is the post that got the thread off kilter. Do
>>>>some
>>>>research instead of striking out so fast and making a fool outa
>>>>yourself.
>>>>If you weren't so quick to lash out without proof you wouldn't look like
>>>>such a fool. And, to think you lashed out when there is proof to show
>>>>you
>>>>are wrong.
>
>>> I just went back up the thread to his original post...and you're nailed
>>> to
>>> the wall, son.
>
>>You missed.
>
> Pure Wentzkian bullshit:
His original post in this thread has nothing from me in it.
His original pst in this thread is a reply to Sound of Trumpet.
I replied to his original post in this thread, which was a post only of my
words and a defnition.
Then his reply to that is where the missing symbols came in.
Then I added symbols to show my words as my words.
If you can read the designations and the words assigned to each person you
would see the flow.
Probably because he posted his with that code that prevented my newsreader
from inserting such.
> If you can't figure that out from comparing the two, that's just more
> proof
> that you're massively stupid. Have your caretakers look at the
> Message-IDs
> and they can verify your screw-up, themselves.
If you can't figure out that it wasn;t me that screwed the thing up then why
are you still bitching at me and not jumping all over anarcissie for
screwing it up?
You numbskulls really do want people to hate you don't you after you do
something so underhanded and obvious and then act like someone else slipped
after you did the fuck up yourselves.
Pr0r3p
Not liars like you...
Johnny
"Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1147707718.0...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I'm not lying you little money-loving bitch.
>> Do you think it will be you numbskulls who raise so much strife or do you
>> think it will be those who are sick of your acts against peace and life?
No response to that, bitch.
Pr0r3p
LOL!!! Here, go get the stick....good boy....
>
> >> Do you think it will be you numbskulls who raise so much strife or do you
> >> think it will be those who are sick of your acts against peace and life?
>
> No response to that, bitch.
Good boy....
The Chief Instigator
...which explains why you're whining just to hear yourself.
>>>>>>>> One more leap and he'll realise it's not his either.
>>>>>>>Learning to read in newsgroups is something you need to grasp.
>>>>>> Is that why you've never learned to do as you demand of others? (I saw
>>>>>> the original, and you mangled it. I know you're too psychotic to pay
>>>>>> attention to the little chevrons, but they *do* have a purpose.)
>>>>>Nah. anarcissie's post is the post that got the thread off kilter. Do
>>>>>some research instead of striking out so fast and making a fool outa
>>>>>yourself. If you weren't so quick to lash out without proof you wouldn't
>>>>>look like such a fool. And, to think you lashed out when there is proof
>>>>>to show you are wrong.
>>>> I just went back up the thread to his original post...and you're nailed
>>>> to
>>>> the wall, son.
>>>You missed.
>> Pure Wentzkian bullshit:
>His original post in this thread has nothing from me in it.
You REALLY need to quit abusing drugs, boy...especially since you quoted my
posting of the two articles, below.
>His original pst in this thread is a reply to Sound of Trumpet.
Is that why the References: line points to YOU?
>I replied to his original post in this thread, which was a post only of my
>words and a defnition.
>Then his reply to that is where the missing symbols came in.
>Then I added symbols to show my words as my words.
>If you can read the designations and the words assigned to each person you
>would see the flow.
If you didn't have scrambled eggs for brains, I wouldn't be lecturing you
about trying to blame others for your insanity.
>>> cases are the real misogynists. Now they are begging for money, and this
>>> while everyone knows the pharmaceutical firms are making so much money
>>> they should pay for the damages they caused in their for-profit businesses
>>> already.
>> However, it's not up to you to dictate to a lot of other
>> people how to live their lives, including the reproductive
>> functions of their bodies.
>> The idea that half the human race should be enslaved
Idiot! No one can make your newsreader do anything by posting text, you
moron. YOU did something to yours that garbled the attribs, so shut up and
admit you have no damned idea of what you're doing (as usual).
>> If you can't figure that out from comparing the two, that's just more proof
>> that you're massively stupid. Have your caretakers look at the Message-IDs
>> and they can verify your screw-up, themselves.
>If you can't figure out that it wasn;t me that screwed the thing up then why
>are you still bitching at me and not jumping all over anarcissie for
>screwing it up?
Because you're the circus freak who can't see the proof right in front of him,
and you post the evidence that refutes you, to boot. You're beyond stupid.
>You numbskulls really do want people to hate you don't you after you do
>something so underhanded and obvious and then act like someone else slipped
>after you did the fuck up yourselves.
Thanks for showing the audience that you really *are* psychotic, Wentzky.
Have your caretakers considered electroshock for you? (I'm not sure even that
would help, as far as you've run away from reality.)
no...@usa.com
When 95% of Catholics user artificial birth control, the "Church" does
not reject it. Only the old sterile men at the Vatican reject it while
they do not need it.
BOB
@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
At least not with each other...
>
duke
wrote:
>>Cooperating with the Creator: Birth Control and the Church
>The true reason is simple: Greed for future power, contributions, and
>market share.
Nope, but because God said "don't mess with my creation".
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
--sexkitten--
> On Mon, 15 May 2006 07:06:59 -0700, Antonio Forza <antoni...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>Cooperating with the Creator: Birth Control and the Church
>
>
>>The true reason is simple: Greed for future power, contributions, and
>>market share.
>
>
> Nope, but because God said "don't mess with my creation".
God in your bible also said fetuses were not people but property, but
you cafeteria Christians tend to forget things like that.
--
--sexkitten--
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which
feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget
that ye were our countrymen."
-- Samuel Adams, 1776"
Cary Kittrell
> On Mon, 15 May 2006 07:06:59 -0700, Antonio Forza <antoni...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>Cooperating with the Creator: Birth Control and the Church
>
> >The true reason is simple: Greed for future power, contributions, and
> >market share.
>
> Nope, but because God said "don't mess with my creation".
Really?
Chapter and verse, please:
-- cary
bam
> duke wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 May 2006 07:06:59 -0700, Antonio Forza
>> <antoni...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Cooperating with the Creator: Birth Control and the Church
>>
>>
>>>The true reason is simple: Greed for future power, contributions, and
>>>market share.
>>
>>
>> Nope, but because God said "don't mess with my creation".
>
> God in your bible also said fetuses were not people but property, but you
> cafeteria Christians tend to forget things like that.
References?
BAM
--sexkitten--
Here's a hint: it's in Exodus. It's been shown to you many times.
bam
> bam wrote:
>
>> "--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4468c799$0$29306$8826...@free.teranews.com...
>>
>>>duke wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 15 May 2006 07:06:59 -0700, Antonio Forza
>>>><antoni...@yahoo.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Cooperating with the Creator: Birth Control and the Church
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The true reason is simple: Greed for future power, contributions, and
>>>>>market share.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nope, but because God said "don't mess with my creation".
>>>
>>>God in your bible also said fetuses were not people but property, but you
>>>cafeteria Christians tend to forget things like that.
>>
>>
>> References?
>
> Here's a hint: it's in Exodus. It's been shown to you many times.
Whew! I'm glad you meant only that. Scholars modern and ancient disagree
with your interpretation.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2598
There is also the inference that this is an unintended act. One would have
to conclude that an intentional abortion would have been dealt with much
more severely.
Just curious - if a man hits a woman and she miscarries, with no other
injuries, what do you think the penalty should be, if any, and why?
BAM
Mordecai!
bam wrote:
As I have never seen such a load of utter self service trollop since the last
election - I will pass on your "Scholars."
--
Mordecai!
When words and actions disagree, believe actions.
When rhetoric and reality disagree, either rhetoric is wrong or reality is
wrong, and reality is Never wrong.
--sexkitten--
> "--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:446906e8$0$29242$8826...@free.teranews.com...
>
>>bam wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:4468c799$0$29306$8826...@free.teranews.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>duke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 15 May 2006 07:06:59 -0700, Antonio Forza
>>>>><antoni...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Cooperating with the Creator: Birth Control and the Church
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The true reason is simple: Greed for future power, contributions, and
>>>>>>market share.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Nope, but because God said "don't mess with my creation".
>>>>
>>>>God in your bible also said fetuses were not people but property, but you
>>>>cafeteria Christians tend to forget things like that.
>>>
>>>
>>>References?
>>
>>Here's a hint: it's in Exodus. It's been shown to you many times.
>
>
> Whew! I'm glad you meant only that. Scholars modern and ancient disagree
> with your interpretation.
...depending on their stance.
> http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2598
>
> There is also the inference that this is an unintended act. One would have
> to conclude that an intentional abortion would have been dealt with much
> more severely.
No, one would not. One would easily come to a completely different
conclusion based upon one actually *reading* the highly detailed and
numerous murder laws in the Bible, which one obviously has not, or one
would certainly have noted the absence of any further mention of a
fetus. One needs to actually read the book he keeps quoting.
> Just curious - if a man hits a woman and she miscarries, with no other
> injuries, what do you think the penalty should be, if any, and why?
Assault and battery w/ intent to commit grevious bodily harm, possibly
attempted murder depending on the severity of the attack. Same as you'd
give for any other attack.
Antonio Forza
>On Mon, 15 May 2006 07:06:59 -0700, Antonio Forza <antoni...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>Cooperating with the Creator: Birth Control and the Church
>
>>The true reason is simple: Greed for future power, contributions, and
>>market share.
>
>Nope, but because God said "don't mess with my creation".
So you also shun all medicines and synthetic materials? How can you
possibly be using a computer?
bam
"Mordecai!" <"mldavis(please dont spam)"@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:446927DA...@internode.on.net...
Who cares?
BAM
bam
Read the article, slut.
>> Just curious - if a man hits a woman and she miscarries, with no other
>> injuries, what do you think the penalty should be, if any, and why?
>
> Assault and battery w/ intent to commit grevious bodily harm, possibly
> attempted murder depending on the severity of the attack. Same as you'd
> give for any other attack.
But nothing for the miscarriage itself?
BAM
Mordecai!
bam wrote:
err - you do.
If you honestly did not care, you would not have replied.
Is there any other service I can supply to you, my lovely lady?
PS - everyone knows that Before jeremiah was conceived, he was known by G_d so
life begins before conception.
Ergo it MIGHT be concluded whenever you refuse sex and do not create life, you
are engaged in murder.
From the sublime to the ridiculous ... you can prove whatever you want by
starting from your conclusion and working out your theory.
However - I prefer truth so if you have any - please let me know.
Ray Fischer
> Antonio Forza <antoni...@yahoo.com>
>>>Cooperating with the Creator: Birth Control and the Church
>
>>The true reason is simple: Greed for future power, contributions, and
>>market share.
>
>Nope, but because God said "don't mess with my creation".
You claim you don't lie, and yet there you are lying.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
--sexkitten--
Read your book first, turned-down-by-crack-whores Bam.
>
>>>Just curious - if a man hits a woman and she miscarries, with no other
>>>injuries, what do you think the penalty should be, if any, and why?
>>
>>Assault and battery w/ intent to commit grevious bodily harm, possibly
>>attempted murder depending on the severity of the attack. Same as you'd
>>give for any other attack.
>
>
> But nothing for the miscarriage itself?
That *is* for the miscarriage, or weren't you aware that they can be
physically damaging and even fatal if the woman hemorrhages?
june...@btinternet.com
> > bam wrote:
[snip]
> >>>God in your bible also said fetuses were not people but property, but you
> >>>cafeteria Christians tend to forget things like that.
> >>
> >>
> >> References?
> >
> > Here's a hint: it's in Exodus. It's been shown to you many times.
>
> Whew! I'm glad you meant only that. Scholars modern and ancient disagree
> with your interpretation.
>
> http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2598
They fail to take into account the specificity of the penalties for
various injuries. These injuries clearly refer only to the woman
because of 'tooth for tooth' - foetuses don't have teeth.
[snip]
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/june...@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
•R L Measures
<mcca...@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
• A penalectomy sounds fair.
no...@usa.com
bam
"Mordecai!" <"mldavis(please dont spam)"@internode.on.net> wrote >> Who
>>
>> BAM
>
> err - you do.
> If you honestly did not care, you would not have replied.
So anyone who says "who cares?" really cares because the person said "who
cares". I'll let the audience decide.
> Is there any other service I can supply to you, my lovely lady?
Jump in the nearest lake?
> PS - everyone knows that Before jeremiah was conceived, he was known by
> G_d so
> life begins before conception.
That is illogical. Life cannot begin before life exists.
> Ergo it MIGHT be concluded whenever you refuse sex and do not create life,
> you
> are engaged in murder.
Keep worshipping the sophists; it's going to take you a lot of work to get
to their level though.
> From the sublime to the ridiculous ... you can prove whatever you want by
> starting from your conclusion and working out your theory.
>
> However - I prefer truth so if you have any - please let me know.
Perhaps you should start by learning what truth is.
BAM
bam
You won't accept my hypothetical because you can't answer it. I said the
assault resulted only in a miscarriage - no other injuries.
BAM
bam
<june...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1147758766.7...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> bam wrote:
>> "--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:446906e8$0$29242$8826...@free.teranews.com...
>> > bam wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> >>>God in your bible also said fetuses were not people but property, but
>> >>>you
>> >>>cafeteria Christians tend to forget things like that.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> References?
>> >
>> > Here's a hint: it's in Exodus. It's been shown to you many times.
>>
>> Whew! I'm glad you meant only that. Scholars modern and ancient disagree
>> with your interpretation.
>>
>> http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2598
>
> They fail to take into account the specificity of the penalties for
> various injuries. These injuries clearly refer only to the woman
> because of 'tooth for tooth' - foetuses don't have teeth.
Well, that solves that. I guess once all your teeth are out you can do
anything you want.
BAM
bam
"•R L Measures" <r...@somis.org> wrote in message
news:r-1605060...@192.168.1.100...
You're kissing the woman's ass again - as all sophists do.
BAM
Johnny
Asswipe. My newsreader would not insert the symbols automatically after
anarcissie screwed up the post.
> YOU did something to yours that garbled the attribs,
GOD DAMN THAT SHIT!
I mean it.
You are telling a lie, asswipe, asswipe, asswipe.
I did NOTHING TO screw up the thread.
> so shut up and
> admit you have no damned idea of what you're doing (as usual).
You shut up, you fool.
You are the one spewing a bunch of shit in here, so you make yourself an
example of what you demand of others to do and stop lying.
>>> If you can't figure that out from comparing the two, that's just more
>>> proof
>>> that you're massively stupid. Have your caretakers look at the
>>> Message-IDs
>>> and they can verify your screw-up, themselves.
>
>>If you can't figure out that it wasn;t me that screwed the thing up then
>>why
>>are you still bitching at me and not jumping all over anarcissie for
>>screwing it up?
>
> Because you're the circus freak who can't see the proof right in front of
> him,
> and you post the evidence that refutes you, to boot. You're beyond
> stupid.
You're the god damned liar who is lying.
You god damned fool.
I didn't screw it up, you god damned fool.
>>You numbskulls really do want people to hate you don't you after you do
>>something so underhanded and obvious and then act like someone else
>>slipped
>>after you did the fuck up yourselves.
>
> Thanks for showing the audience that you really *are* psychotic, Wentzky.
> Have your caretakers considered electroshock for you? (I'm not sure even
> that
> would help, as far as you've run away from reality.)
You're the god damned fool, asswipe.
You missed.
Where are those meds you so often want others to take?
Mordecai!
bam wrote:
> "Mordecai!" <"mldavis(please dont spam)"@internode.on.net> wrote >> Who
> cares?
> >>
> >> BAM
> >
> > err - you do.
> > If you honestly did not care, you would not have replied.
>
> So anyone who says "who cares?" really cares because the person said "who
> cares". I'll let the audience decide.
My lady - you were expressing your anger - were you not?
Your anger testifies a care factor.
As for the audience - if I did care (which I do not) then I would hazard a guess
that they hate you because of your "Christian love" and as such - they would
take my side. However - they would be doing so because they respond to your hate
... err Christian love - rather than on the merits of the claim.
Thus they are biased .. in my favour but that is moot.
As such I must discount their testimony.
Ergo, I am indifferent to their judgement - even though I predict it would be in
my favour.
>
>
> > Is there any other service I can supply to you, my lovely lady?
>
> Jump in the nearest lake?
Ah, Christian love.
>
> > PS - everyone knows that Before jeremiah was conceived, he was known by
> > G_d so
> > life begins before conception.
>
> That is illogical. Life cannot begin before life exists.
>
> > Ergo it MIGHT be concluded whenever you refuse sex and do not create life,
> > you
> > are engaged in murder.
>
> Keep worshipping the sophists; it's going to take you a lot of work to get
> to their level though.
>
> > From the sublime to the ridiculous ... you can prove whatever you want by
> > starting from your conclusion and working out your theory.
> >
> > However - I prefer truth so if you have any - please let me know.
>
> Perhaps you should start by learning what truth is.
>
> BAM
Oh I have learned the truth.
Christian love is my measure. I measure it - constantly. I have decided I do
not like it.
Thanks for you testimony on Christian love.
bam
"Mordecai!" <"mldavis(please dont spam)"@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:4469E403...@internode.on.net...
It's an old ploy. Take the aggresive part, and when you get whooped start
whimpering about how your opponent should turn the other cheek.
And since you have no standards, you are morally impervious. However you
still keep the advantage of judging me by my standards. Unfortunately, you
must realize that your judgments have no value, because you don't understand
justice.
BAM
fact-c...@hotmail.com
>
> Oh I have learned the truth.
> Christian love is my measure. I measure it - constantly. I have decided I do
> not like it.
> Thanks for you testimony on Christian love.
=======
Followrs of Judaism here tell Christians to go to Hell and say that
they want to see Christians dead.
I have seen Judaism's ethics in action and I don't like it.
Ray Fischer
>"Mordecai!" <"mldavis(please dont spam)"@internode.on.net> wrote >> Who
>> G_d so
>> life begins before conception.
>
>That is illogical. Life cannot begin before life exists.
life: the period from birth to death
Mirriam Webster Dictionary
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
The Chief Instigator
>"The Chief Instigator" <pat...@io.com> wrote in message
>news:szkpsif...@fnord.io.com...
>> "Johnny" <wxpprof...@msn.com> writes:
>>>"The Chief Instigator" <pat...@io.com> wrote in message
>>>news:szkejyv...@fnord.io.com...
[...the rest of this is archived, so anyone that's interested can see it
there...]
>>>> Notice that YOUR newsreader didn't insert the chevron before your quote.
>>>Probably because he posted his with that code that prevented my newsreader
>>>from inserting such.
>> Idiot! No one can make your newsreader do anything by posting text, you
>> moron.
>Asswipe. My newsreader would not insert the symbols automatically after
>anarcissie screwed up the post.
You're amazingly stupid, Wentzky. You can't even understand your newsreader,
but you're sure everyone else is conspiring against you?
>> YOU did something to yours that garbled the attribs,
>GOD DAMN THAT SHIT! I mean it.
So what? It was properly formatted in the post to which you responded, and it
was messed up in your response. The logical conclusion is that you made the
mess of it. (Whether you had any idea of what you were doing is another can
of worms.)
>You are telling a lie, asswipe, asswipe, asswipe.
45 years old, and there are infants who can act more grown-up than you.
That's sad to see.
>I did NOTHING TO screw up the thread.
You did, son, even if you'll never understand it.
>> so shut up and admit you have no damned idea of what you're doing (as
>> usual).
>You shut up, you fool.
I'll express my opinions of you, and you will deal with it. (You *could*
choose to ignore me, but I don't think you'd ever allow yourself to do
that...it's all about attention for you, isn't it?)
>You are the one spewing a bunch of shit in here, so you make yourself an
>example of what you demand of others to do and stop lying.
Sorry, I don't do as certified lunatics tell me.
>>>> If you can't figure that out from comparing the two, that's just more
>>>> proof that you're massively stupid. Have your caretakers look at the
>>>> Message-IDs and they can verify your screw-up, themselves.
>>>If you can't figure out that it wasn;t me that screwed the thing up then
>>>why are you still bitching at me and not jumping all over anarcissie for
>>>screwing it up?
>> Because you're the circus freak who can't see the proof right in front of
>> him, and you post the evidence that refutes you, to boot. You're beyond
>> stupid.
>You're the god damned liar who is lying. You god damned fool. I didn't
>screw it up, you god damned fool.
You did it, and it's archived for eternity (or at least as long as Google's
around). Live with your own flagrant fuck-up, for once in your life.
>>>You numbskulls really do want people to hate you don't you after you do
>>>something so underhanded and obvious and then act like someone else slipped
>>>after you did the fuck up yourselves.
>> Thanks for showing the audience that you really *are* psychotic, Wentzky.
>> Have your caretakers considered electroshock for you? (I'm not sure even
>> that would help, as far as you've run away from reality.)
>You're the god damned fool, asswipe. You missed. Where are those meds you
>so often want others to take?
How should I know? I'm not your doctor (thank whatever gods there may be for
*that* favor!), even if I'm only going to be barely 200 miles away from you in
Kentucky nexy week...
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: October 2006, opponent/venue/time TBA
--sexkitten--
WTF??????? I answered it, you moron. Count the chevrons. *YOU* won't
respond to it because *YOU* can't. Don't project your problems onto me.
bam
You said, "same as you'd give for any other attack", which can only mean
that the miscarriage means nothing, since the charge would be the same
whether there were a miscarriage or not.
BAM
--sexkitten--
It's at the least assault and at the worst, murder. Where do you get
"means nothing" out of that? The charge is of necessity more serious
than simple assault if there had been no miscarriage because a
miscarriage can kill, where a punch to the stomach generally won't. Do
you get it now?
bam
So the death of the infant carries no penalty? Why are you afraid to answer
a simple question?
BAM
--sexkitten--
The deliberate death of an *infant* is murder, but that wasn't what you
were talking about.
Why are you afraid to answer
> a simple question?
*yawn* I answered it. Why are you so afraid to read or acknowledge it?
Just another Catholic coward.
bam
Beating around the bush again.
>
> Why are you afraid to answer
>> a simple question?
>
> *yawn* I answered it. Why are you so afraid to read or acknowledge it?
> Just another Catholic coward.
Coward? If anyone's a coward it's you. I ask a straight question and you've
been dancing the Ballet Russ.
BAM
anarc...@gmail.com
> On 14 May 2006 05:05:22 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
> <soundof...@hoshmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Cooperating with the Creator: Birth Control and the Church
>
> The true reason is simple: Greed for future power, contributions, and
> market share.
>
> create more people who are likely to also remain within its sphere of
> linfluence.
>
> The catholic church cares not that human population is spiralling out
> of control, and that many of the people who follow its edicts are
> impoverished, and would benefit greatly by the use of birth control.
>
> If you want to understand the truth behind the "teachings" of the
> catholic church, just follow the money, and all will become clear.
If all they desired were adherents, then they would have the
priests, nuns, monks and so forth work hard at reproduction.
I think there is an even more basic hatred of sex and women
rooted in the patriarchal history of the Church. It probably
goes back to pre-Christian times, since the Church absorbed
a lot of pagan influences during the period of its formation.
There were sex- and woman-hating cults in the ancient world
that must have attracted the apparatchiks of the Roman
Empire (from which the Church takes its name, its structure,
and its capital city).
Steve O
<anarc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147813190.1...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Also, the church needs the poor.
There's no better way to make people poor than making them have eight or
nine mouths to feed.
The poor and the church go hand in hand.
It is the poor who support the church, particularly the Roman Catholic
Church.
They give what little they can on the false promise of everlasting riches in
the next life.
It's a neat trick, if you can get away with it.
--
Steve O
a.a. #2240
"Apparently, as I understand it , I am supposed to repent for being the way
that God made me, and then God will save me from God?"
Greywolf
"Steve O" <stob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4cuu0qF...@individual.net...
Mexico way to enter the United States illegally? It wouldn't have a *single*
thing to do with the fact that a whole heck of a lot of them are RC, would
it? And wouldn't really such staunch religionists help keep a neo-con
cause -- an American theocracy -- alive, and even help assist and fuel the
right-wing *evangelical* drive to, 'Take Back America for Christ!' Nah.
I must have just taken too many of my 'ridiculous' pills this morning.
Oh well.
Greywolf
--sexkitten--
Running away like an altar boy with a priest behind him again.
>> Why are you afraid to answer
>>
>>>a simple question?
>>
>>*yawn* I answered it. Why are you so afraid to read or acknowledge it?
>>Just another Catholic coward.
>
>
> Coward?
You. Yes.
>If anyone's a coward it's you. I ask a straight question
I gave a straight answer. Count the chevrons.
bam
You see what you want to see. We see babies - you see a blob of cells. I
wonder what God sees when He looks at you.
BAM
--sexkitten--
> "--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:446a3960$0$24214$8826...@free.teranews.com...
>
>>bam wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:446a1e20$0$24194$8826...@free.teranews.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>bam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:446a0042$0$24252$8826...@free.teranews.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>Assault and battery w/ intent to commit grevious bodily harm,
No, that would once again be you. We see pregnant women- you see an
incubator for more kids to molest.
--
--sexkitten--
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make
my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it.
-Voltaire
Terry Cross
> wonder what God sees when He looks at you.
That is a hard saying, Bam. Very hard.
You see, God is an Atheist - he doesn't believe in "Sex Kitten."
TCross
--sexkitten--
Are you kidding? Sex is when people call on god the most!!!
--
--sexkitten--
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make
my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it.
-Voltaire
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
Terry Cross
You dream. The most devout practice, the one that brings people to
their knees calling on the Name of the Almighty is (... the envelope
please ...) Raising Children.
TCross
--sexkitten--
Nah. Sex has you calling God. Kids have you calling God Dammit.
•R L Measures
<mcca...@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
• hitting a woman is bad form, except of course by tearful request.
bam
Abortion is the worst form of child abuse. And the number of abortions
compared to the number of molestations makes the molestations only mildly
annoying.
I also notice that whenever you're out of tricks you turn over the queer
priest card, despite the irrelevance. What happened to the Crusades and the
Inquisition?
BAM
bam
Slob.
BAM
Ray Fischer
bam
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:446b437f$0$65428$742e...@news.sonic.net...
Act 7:54 Now hearing these things, they were cut to the heart: and they
gnashed with their teeth at him.
BAM
--sexkitten--
Abortion does not involve a child in anywhere but christian fantasies
(and we see from the news reports why they want more kids).
And the number of abortions
> compared to the number of molestations makes the molestations only mildly
> annoying.
Only to a Catholic desperate for a distraction.
> I also notice that whenever you're out of tricks you turn over the queer
> priest card, despite the irrelevance. What happened to the Crusades and the
> Inquisition?
I don't recall mentioning any homosexual priests. I mentioned
pedophiles, but that's a different thing. And it's certainly not
irrelevant. *Your church*, that is soooo anxious to love and protect a
fetus, covered up for pedophiles and in fact made sure they had a
plentiful supply of live, born children to choose from.
Last time I brought up church-sanctioned murder you said that was
irrelevant too. Apparently your definition of irrelevant is
"embarrassing to the Church, true or not".
--sexkitten--
Yeah, and you're gnashing your teeth. What of it?
bam
Let me see if I follow your logic. We shouldn't by hypocrites - we should
practice what we preach. I agree totally and your criticism is valid, even
if you are a hypocrite yourself by trying to moralize. But what are you
suggesting? That the Catholic Church has no right to stand up for the unborn
as long as there's a child molester in the group? That we should throw in
the towel and tell you to go ahead and kill them?
> Last time I brought up church-sanctioned murder you said that was
> irrelevant too. Apparently your definition of irrelevant is "embarrassing
> to the Church, true or not".
Care to elaborate on this alleged "church-sanctioned murder"? My memory has
failed me.
BAM