Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Celebrate National Pro-Life Cupcake Day
151 views
Skip to first unread message
J
Oct 8, 2012, 10:03:40 PM10/8/12
to
What a fantastic idea!
http://cupcakesforlife.com/
Cupcakes are such sweet and fun things to have at events and for people
that are cared about, especially for birthdays! With this in mind, we
want to help others realize not every child has the chance to have a
birthday because of abortion, and that we care about them. We thought
these children’s lives should be remembered, so we picked October 9th as
a national day to recognize them and raise awareness about the issue of
abortion and the impact it is having. By using cupcakes we are able to
reach out to the general public in a warm, non-confrontational way and
use it as a segue to raise awareness, start conversation, and
potentially educate individuals about issues that would ordinarily be
suppressed to silence.
--
J Young
jdyo...@ymail.com
http://www.americandecency.org/
http://cupcakesforlife.com/
Cupcakes are such sweet and fun things to have at events and for people
that are cared about, especially for birthdays! With this in mind, we
want to help others realize not every child has the chance to have a
birthday because of abortion, and that we care about them. We thought
these children’s lives should be remembered, so we picked October 9th as
a national day to recognize them and raise awareness about the issue of
abortion and the impact it is having. By using cupcakes we are able to
reach out to the general public in a warm, non-confrontational way and
use it as a segue to raise awareness, start conversation, and
potentially educate individuals about issues that would ordinarily be
suppressed to silence.
--
J Young
jdyo...@ymail.com
http://www.americandecency.org/
Father Haskell
Oct 8, 2012, 10:06:20 PM10/8/12
to
>
> http://www.americandecency.org/
Don't you think pizza would be more appropriate?
W.T.S.
Oct 9, 2012, 2:43:22 AM10/9/12
to
In article <60sm71....@news.alt.net>, Jerk...@Liar.com says...
>
> What a fantastic idea!
Perhaps a few pennies for starving children around the work might do
more good, plus a few pennies for sterilization and contraception.
>
> http://CatholicsForLies.com/Propaganda/Disinformation/Lies/Bigotry/
>
<snip> Usual lying bull shit, why repost? </snip>
>
Summary: No child is ever involved in any abortion. End of story. So,
what else is new?
>
For more truth, follow the links below:
>
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
>
http://tinyurl.com/ybmwsk4
>
> What a fantastic idea!
Perhaps a few pennies for starving children around the work might do
more good, plus a few pennies for sterilization and contraception.
>
> http://CatholicsForLies.com/Propaganda/Disinformation/Lies/Bigotry/
>
<snip> Usual lying bull shit, why repost? </snip>
>
Summary: No child is ever involved in any abortion. End of story. So,
what else is new?
>
For more truth, follow the links below:
>
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
>
http://tinyurl.com/ybmwsk4
MarkA
Oct 9, 2012, 10:12:33 AM10/9/12
to
Children's ice cream, Mandrake! That's why I only drink pure rain water...
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
Dakota
Oct 9, 2012, 10:53:44 AM10/9/12
to
Syd M.
Oct 9, 2012, 12:06:51 PM10/9/12
to
Yeah, you would think so, woman-hating-forced-birther.
Syd M.
Oct 9, 2012, 12:07:56 PM10/9/12
to
Brian E. Clark
Oct 9, 2012, 1:19:28 PM10/9/12
to
In article <pan.2012.10.09.14.12.30.490245
@nowhere.invalid>, nob...@nowhere.invalid says...
> Next thing you know, they'll want to add fluoride to ice cream.
> Children's ice cream, Mandrake! That's why I only drink pure rain water...
Boys can't learn how to deny girls their "essence,"
Mandrake, because the pro-lifers keep blocking sensible sex
education in schools. ;-)
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
@nowhere.invalid>, nob...@nowhere.invalid says...
> Next thing you know, they'll want to add fluoride to ice cream.
> Children's ice cream, Mandrake! That's why I only drink pure rain water...
Mandrake, because the pro-lifers keep blocking sensible sex
education in schools. ;-)
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
Dakota
Oct 9, 2012, 7:29:53 PM10/9/12
to
pnyikos
Oct 9, 2012, 10:12:07 PM10/9/12
to nyi...@math.sc.edu
plaudits in _The Gamecock_, our left of center student newspaper, for
selling chocolate roses on Valentine's day to raise money for
Birthright, an organization that gives financial support (mostly
clothing) to women in crisis pregnancy situations who want to keep
their babies.
It's pro-choice in the true sense of the word--at least as pro-choice
as the abortion providers who charge money for their services and
don't do follow-ups.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu
pnyikos
Oct 9, 2012, 10:47:09 PM10/9/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Oct 9, 10:53 am, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/9/2012 9:12 AM, MarkA wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 19:03:40 -0700, J wrote:
>
> >> What a fantastic idea!
>
> >>http://cupcakesforlife.com/
>
> >> Cupcakes are such sweet and fun things to have at events and for people
> >> that are cared about, especially for birthdays! With this in mind, we want
> >> to help others realize not every child has the chance to have a birthday
> >> because of abortion, and that we care about them. We thought these
> >> children's lives should be remembered, so we picked October 9th as a
> >> national day to recognize them and raise awareness about the issue of
> >> abortion and the impact it is having. By using cupcakes we are able to
> >> reach out to the general public in a warm, non-confrontational way and use
> >> it as a segue to raise awareness, start conversation, and potentially
> >> educate individuals about issues that would ordinarily be suppressed to
> >> silence.
>
> > Next thing you know, they'll want to add fluoride to ice cream.
Who is "they"? Not pro-lifers, they have better ideas.
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 19:03:40 -0700, J wrote:
>
> >> What a fantastic idea!
>
> >>http://cupcakesforlife.com/
>
> >> Cupcakes are such sweet and fun things to have at events and for people
> >> that are cared about, especially for birthdays! With this in mind, we want
> >> to help others realize not every child has the chance to have a birthday
> >> because of abortion, and that we care about them. We thought these
> >> children's lives should be remembered, so we picked October 9th as a
> >> national day to recognize them and raise awareness about the issue of
> >> abortion and the impact it is having. By using cupcakes we are able to
> >> reach out to the general public in a warm, non-confrontational way and use
> >> it as a segue to raise awareness, start conversation, and potentially
> >> educate individuals about issues that would ordinarily be suppressed to
> >> silence.
>
> > Next thing you know, they'll want to add fluoride to ice cream.
> > Children's ice cream, Mandrake! That's why I only drink pure rain water...
>
> I admit it's a better idea than murdering physicians and bombing clinics.
"anti-abortion" with "pro-life". The latter includes opposition to
euthanasia, suicide, and in many cases, capital punishment. It is
also anti-murder, and all the mainstream pro-life organizations
condemn the murderers of abortionists and their employees, and the
bombing of their facilities.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
Oct 9, 2012, 10:48:25 PM10/9/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
pregnant?
You do need to get pregnant to give birth, you know.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
Oct 9, 2012, 11:07:01 PM10/9/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Oct 9, 2:44 am, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> In article <60sm71.33i.1...@news.alt.net>, Jerk-L...@Liar.com says...
>
> > What a fantastic idea!
> Usual lying bull shit, why repost?
Yeah, why did you repost your usual lying bullshit?
> Summary: No child is ever involved in any abortion. End of story. So,
> what else is new?
The fact that your summary is a lie is not new. See the following,
from a non-biased website:
http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/child-term.html
Here is the relevant excerpt:
Child
1) A person's offspring of any age, which can include biological
offspring, unborn children, adopted children, stepchildren, foster
children, and children born outside of marriage.
And here's a little bonus, from another unbiased source:
http://www.drugs.com/ella.html
"ella can harm an unborn baby"
Go ahead, lie that these are bullshit websites, make my day.
I'd been hoping that you were actually Theodore Shulman, and that you
would disappear from Usenet for 41 months:
HEADLINE: 41-month sentence for ‘pro-choice terrorist’ who threatened
to kill pro-life leaders
Excerpts from article:
Theodore Shulman, a pro-choice activist who in 2010 threatened to kill
several pro-life leaders, has been sentenced to 41 months in federal
prison.
...
Shulman liked to style himself as the “first pro-choice terrorist” and
even had a blog called “Operation Counterstrike.” His mission
statement was: “Right-to-lifism is murder, and ALL right-to-lifers are
bloody-handed accessories. Swear it, believe it, proclaim it, and act
on it.”
...
Shulman has frequently harassed Operation Rescue’s Cheryl Sullenger,
threatening in a voice mail that Sullenger should “convert” to pro-
choice “during the few months you have left on this earth,” or else
“you will go to hell and burn.”
Upon the death of pro-life leader Dr. Bernard Nathanson, Shulman
wrote, “Unfortunately, he died in his bed. He was not killed by a pro-
choice counterterrorist. Too bad, he would have been a most effective
target.”
======== end of excerpts
You and Shulman are birds of a feather, obviously. Will you be
plotting together with him once he is let out of prison?
> For more truth, follow the links below:
http://www.abortiontv.com/index.html
http://nchla.org
http://old.usccb.org/prolife/
http://old.usccb.org/prolife/publicat/
http://old.usccb.org/prolife/publicat/lifeinsight/
http://www.rockforlife.org/
http://www.abortionchangesyou.com/
http://www.abort73.com/
http://www.abort73.com/testimony/1457/
http://www.abort73.com/abortion/prenatal_development/
http://www.pregnantpause.org/index.html
http://www.facinglife.tv/index.htm
> In article <60sm71.33i.1...@news.alt.net>, Jerk-L...@Liar.com says...
>
> > What a fantastic idea!
> Usual lying bull shit, why repost?
> Summary: No child is ever involved in any abortion. End of story. So,
> what else is new?
from a non-biased website:
http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/child-term.html
Here is the relevant excerpt:
Child
1) A person's offspring of any age, which can include biological
offspring, unborn children, adopted children, stepchildren, foster
children, and children born outside of marriage.
And here's a little bonus, from another unbiased source:
http://www.drugs.com/ella.html
"ella can harm an unborn baby"
Go ahead, lie that these are bullshit websites, make my day.
I'd been hoping that you were actually Theodore Shulman, and that you
would disappear from Usenet for 41 months:
HEADLINE: 41-month sentence for ‘pro-choice terrorist’ who threatened
to kill pro-life leaders
Excerpts from article:
Theodore Shulman, a pro-choice activist who in 2010 threatened to kill
several pro-life leaders, has been sentenced to 41 months in federal
prison.
...
Shulman liked to style himself as the “first pro-choice terrorist” and
even had a blog called “Operation Counterstrike.” His mission
statement was: “Right-to-lifism is murder, and ALL right-to-lifers are
bloody-handed accessories. Swear it, believe it, proclaim it, and act
on it.”
...
Shulman has frequently harassed Operation Rescue’s Cheryl Sullenger,
threatening in a voice mail that Sullenger should “convert” to pro-
choice “during the few months you have left on this earth,” or else
“you will go to hell and burn.”
Upon the death of pro-life leader Dr. Bernard Nathanson, Shulman
wrote, “Unfortunately, he died in his bed. He was not killed by a pro-
choice counterterrorist. Too bad, he would have been a most effective
target.”
======== end of excerpts
You and Shulman are birds of a feather, obviously. Will you be
plotting together with him once he is let out of prison?
> For more truth, follow the links below:
http://nchla.org
http://old.usccb.org/prolife/
http://old.usccb.org/prolife/publicat/
http://old.usccb.org/prolife/publicat/lifeinsight/
http://www.rockforlife.org/
http://www.abortionchangesyou.com/
http://www.abort73.com/
http://www.abort73.com/testimony/1457/
http://www.abort73.com/abortion/prenatal_development/
http://www.pregnantpause.org/index.html
http://www.facinglife.tv/index.htm
J
Oct 9, 2012, 11:51:53 PM10/9/12
to
reading comprehension is nil, he argues the side of whatever is the
popular opinion, and finds it amusing to post racist 'jokes' Just amuse him.
Syd M.
Oct 10, 2012, 1:54:30 AM10/10/12
to
Syd M.
Oct 10, 2012, 2:04:58 AM10/10/12
to
And I meant that he would force a pregnant woman to have their child,
wether they wanted to or not.
But then, you knew that, didn't you?
Syd M.
Oct 10, 2012, 2:05:46 AM10/10/12
to
On Oct 9, 11:52 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On 10/9/2012 7:48 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> > On Oct 9, 12:06 pm, "Syd M." <pauldavidwri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 8, 10:03 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> What a fantastic idea!
>
> >> Yeah, you would think so, woman-hating-forced-birther.
>
> > Where's the evidence that he hates women, or forces them to get
> > pregnant?
>
> > You do need to get pregnant to give birth, you know.
>
> > Peter Nyikos
>
> Pete, don't waste your time. Paulie is, to put it nicely, "special".
<Yawn> If you think your insults are gonna make me stop refuting your
> On 10/9/2012 7:48 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> > On Oct 9, 12:06 pm, "Syd M." <pauldavidwri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 8, 10:03 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> What a fantastic idea!
>
> >> Yeah, you would think so, woman-hating-forced-birther.
>
> > Where's the evidence that he hates women, or forces them to get
> > pregnant?
>
> > You do need to get pregnant to give birth, you know.
>
> > Peter Nyikos
>
> Pete, don't waste your time. Paulie is, to put it nicely, "special".
lies, asshole, you are sadly mistaken.
W.T.S.
Oct 10, 2012, 4:31:56 AM10/10/12
to
In article <60vgu1....@news.alt.net>, Jerk...@Liar.com says...
that, push for more sterilization.
> >
> > Peter Nyikos
> >
> Pete, don't waste your time helping me. I amto put it nicely,
> "special". My reading comprehension is nil, and my posts are bigoted
> and hateful in every way. It's just the sort of person I am. And I
> do hate women so much!
>
> On 10/9/2012 7:48 PM, pnyikos wrote:
> > On Oct 9, 12:06 pm, "Syd M." <pauldavidwri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 10/9/2012 7:48 PM, pnyikos wrote:
> > On Oct 9, 12:06 pm, "Syd M." <pauldavidwri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 8, 10:03 pm, J <Jerk...@Liar.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> What a fantastic idea!
> >>
> >> Yeah, you would think so, woman-hating-forced-birther.
> >
> > Where's the evidence that he hates women, or forces them to get
> > pregnant?
His ugly, nasty, bigoted posts and responses.
> >>
> >>> What a fantastic idea!
> >>
> >> Yeah, you would think so, woman-hating-forced-birther.
> >
> > Where's the evidence that he hates women, or forces them to get
> > pregnant?
> >
> > You do need to get pregnant to give birth, you know.
And abortion cures pregnancy. Isn't that wonderful> If you don't like
> > You do need to get pregnant to give birth, you know.
that, push for more sterilization.
> >
> > Peter Nyikos
> >
> Pete, don't waste your time helping me. I amto put it nicely,
> "special". My reading comprehension is nil, and my posts are bigoted
> and hateful in every way. It's just the sort of person I am. And I
> do hate women so much!
MarkA
Oct 10, 2012, 10:34:47 AM10/10/12
to
On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 20:07:01 -0700, pnyikos wrote:
> On Oct 9, 2:44 am, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> In article <60sm71.33i.1...@news.alt.net>, Jerk-L...@Liar.com says...
>>
>> > What a fantastic idea!
>
>> Usual lying bull shit, why repost?
>
> Yeah, why did you repost your usual lying bullshit?
>
>> Summary: No child is ever involved in any abortion. End of story.
>> So, what else is new?
>
> The fact that your summary is a lie is not new. See the following, from
> a non-biased website:
> http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/child-term.html
> Here is the relevant excerpt:
> Child
> 1) A person's offspring of any age, which can include biological
> offspring, unborn children, adopted children, stepchildren, foster
> children, and children born outside of marriage.
>
>
Anybody who considers a fertilized oocyte to be an "unborn child" is just
> On Oct 9, 2:44 am, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> In article <60sm71.33i.1...@news.alt.net>, Jerk-L...@Liar.com says...
>>
>> > What a fantastic idea!
>
>> Usual lying bull shit, why repost?
>
> Yeah, why did you repost your usual lying bullshit?
>
>> Summary: No child is ever involved in any abortion. End of story.
>> So, what else is new?
>
> The fact that your summary is a lie is not new. See the following, from
> a non-biased website:
> http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/child-term.html
> Here is the relevant excerpt:
> Child
> 1) A person's offspring of any age, which can include biological
> offspring, unborn children, adopted children, stepchildren, foster
> children, and children born outside of marriage.
>
>
plain crazy.
Furthermore, if an "unborn child" is physically attacking you, and
threatening your life, you have ever right to defend yourself, just as you
would if a teenage hooligan were about to stab you with a knife.
--
MarkA
If you can read this, you can stop reading now.
duke
Oct 10, 2012, 11:15:10 AM10/10/12
to
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:34:47 -0400, MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
>On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 20:07:01 -0700, pnyikos wrote:
>
>> On Oct 9, 2:44 am, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> In article <60sm71.33i.1...@news.alt.net>, Jerk-L...@Liar.com says...
>>>
>>> > What a fantastic idea!
>>
>>> Usual lying bull shit, why repost?
>>
>> Yeah, why did you repost your usual lying bullshit?
>>
>>> Summary: No child is ever involved in any abortion. End of story.
>>> So, what else is new?
>>
>> The fact that your summary is a lie is not new. See the following, from
>> a non-biased website:
>> http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/child-term.html
>> Here is the relevant excerpt:
>> Child
>> 1) A person's offspring of any age, which can include biological
>> offspring, unborn children, adopted children, stepchildren, foster
>> children, and children born outside of marriage.
>>
>>
>Anybody who considers a fertilized oocyte to be an "unborn child" is just
>plain crazy.
At the moment of conception, God infuses a soul into the body. From that moment
>On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 20:07:01 -0700, pnyikos wrote:
>
>> On Oct 9, 2:44 am, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> In article <60sm71.33i.1...@news.alt.net>, Jerk-L...@Liar.com says...
>>>
>>> > What a fantastic idea!
>>
>>> Usual lying bull shit, why repost?
>>
>> Yeah, why did you repost your usual lying bullshit?
>>
>>> Summary: No child is ever involved in any abortion. End of story.
>>> So, what else is new?
>>
>> The fact that your summary is a lie is not new. See the following, from
>> a non-biased website:
>> http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/child-term.html
>> Here is the relevant excerpt:
>> Child
>> 1) A person's offspring of any age, which can include biological
>> offspring, unborn children, adopted children, stepchildren, foster
>> children, and children born outside of marriage.
>>
>>
>Anybody who considers a fertilized oocyte to be an "unborn child" is just
>plain crazy.
on, a human being is starting a journey to God's arms. From that point on, if
you participate in the harm of it, you are relegating yourself to the eternal
fires of hell.
You can book it.
>Furthermore, if an "unborn child" is physically attacking you, and
>threatening your life, you have ever right to defend yourself, just as you
>would if a teenage hooligan were about to stab you with a knife.
********************************************
A vote for obama is a vote for the end of
democracy in America as we know it. Let the
rolling thunder guide your decision at the
ballot box to put an end to Imperial Obama.
May God bless America.
********************************************
Jeanne Douglas
Oct 10, 2012, 3:30:08 PM10/10/12
to
In article <034b78picedf311gc...@4ax.com>,
even exists. Until you do that, your argument is null and void.
--
JD
"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:34:47 -0400, MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 20:07:01 -0700, pnyikos wrote:
> >
> >> On Oct 9, 2:44 am, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>> In article <60sm71.33i.1...@news.alt.net>, Jerk-L...@Liar.com says...
> >>>
> >>> > What a fantastic idea!
> >>
> >>> Usual lying bull shit, why repost?
> >>
> >> Yeah, why did you repost your usual lying bullshit?
> >>
> >>> Summary: No child is ever involved in any abortion. End of story.
> >>> So, what else is new?
> >>
> >> The fact that your summary is a lie is not new. See the following, from
> >> a non-biased website:
> >> http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/child-term.html
> >> Here is the relevant excerpt:
> >> Child
> >> 1) A person's offspring of any age, which can include biological
> >> offspring, unborn children, adopted children, stepchildren, foster
> >> children, and children born outside of marriage.
> >>
> >>
> >Anybody who considers a fertilized oocyte to be an "unborn child" is just
> >plain crazy.
>
> At the moment of conception, God infuses a soul into the body.
You have yet to provide any evidence that any such thing as a "soul"
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:34:47 -0400, MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 20:07:01 -0700, pnyikos wrote:
> >
> >> On Oct 9, 2:44 am, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>> In article <60sm71.33i.1...@news.alt.net>, Jerk-L...@Liar.com says...
> >>>
> >>> > What a fantastic idea!
> >>
> >>> Usual lying bull shit, why repost?
> >>
> >> Yeah, why did you repost your usual lying bullshit?
> >>
> >>> Summary: No child is ever involved in any abortion. End of story.
> >>> So, what else is new?
> >>
> >> The fact that your summary is a lie is not new. See the following, from
> >> a non-biased website:
> >> http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/child-term.html
> >> Here is the relevant excerpt:
> >> Child
> >> 1) A person's offspring of any age, which can include biological
> >> offspring, unborn children, adopted children, stepchildren, foster
> >> children, and children born outside of marriage.
> >>
> >>
> >Anybody who considers a fertilized oocyte to be an "unborn child" is just
> >plain crazy.
>
> At the moment of conception, God infuses a soul into the body.
even exists. Until you do that, your argument is null and void.
--
JD
"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
Patrick
Oct 10, 2012, 8:03:27 PM10/10/12
to
"MarkA" <som...@somewhere.invalid> wrote
> Furthermore, if an "unborn child" is physically attacking you, and
> threatening your life, you have ever right to defend yourself, just as you
> would if a teenage hooligan were about to stab you with a knife.
Yes, if that unborn child were actually threatening your life.
> threatening your life, you have ever right to defend yourself, just as you
> would if a teenage hooligan were about to stab you with a knife.
Patrick
Oct 10, 2012, 8:04:03 PM10/10/12
to
"Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in
> You have yet to provide any evidence that any such thing as a "soul"
> even exists. Until you do that, your argument is null and void.
Then why do you keep crawling back for more?
> even exists. Until you do that, your argument is null and void.
Jeanne Douglas
Oct 10, 2012, 10:36:52 PM10/10/12
to
In article <T1ods.37253$VC5....@fed15.iad>,
You invade OUR home and complain when we defend it? Seriously?
Father Haskell
Oct 10, 2012, 10:41:04 PM10/10/12
to
On Oct 10, 10:36 pm, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> In article <T1ods.37253$VC5.12...@fed15.iad>,
>
> "Patrick" <PBARKER...@r.com> wrote:
> > "Jeanne Douglas" <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in
> In article <T1ods.37253$VC5.12...@fed15.iad>,
>
> "Patrick" <PBARKER...@r.com> wrote:
> > "Jeanne Douglas" <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in
> > > You have yet to provide any evidence that any such thing as a "soul"
> > > even exists. Until you do that, your argument is null and void.
>
> > Then why do you keep crawling back for more?
>
> You invade OUR home and complain when we defend it? Seriously?
You're implying that Ratprick is arrogant?
> > > even exists. Until you do that, your argument is null and void.
>
> > Then why do you keep crawling back for more?
>
> You invade OUR home and complain when we defend it? Seriously?
MarkA
Oct 10, 2012, 10:55:05 PM10/10/12
to
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:15:10 -0500, duke wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:34:47 -0400, MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 20:07:01 -0700, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 9, 2:44 am, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>> In article <60sm71.33i.1...@news.alt.net>, Jerk-L...@Liar.com says...
>>>>
>>>> > What a fantastic idea!
>>>
>>>> Usual lying bull shit, why repost?
>>>
>>> Yeah, why did you repost your usual lying bullshit?
>>>
>>>> Summary: No child is ever involved in any abortion. End of story.
>>>> So, what else is new?
>>>
>>> The fact that your summary is a lie is not new. See the following,
>>> from a non-biased website:
>>> http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/child-term.html
>>> Here is the relevant excerpt:
>>> Child
>>> 1) A person's offspring of any age, which can include biological
>>> offspring, unborn children, adopted children, stepchildren, foster
>>> children, and children born outside of marriage.
>>>
>>>
>>Anybody who considers a fertilized oocyte to be an "unborn child" is just
>>plain crazy.
>
> At the moment of conception, God infuses a soul into the body. From that
> moment on, a human being is starting a journey to God's arms.
If that's the case, why is it that the majority of fertilized oocytes
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:34:47 -0400, MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 20:07:01 -0700, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 9, 2:44 am, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>> In article <60sm71.33i.1...@news.alt.net>, Jerk-L...@Liar.com says...
>>>>
>>>> > What a fantastic idea!
>>>
>>>> Usual lying bull shit, why repost?
>>>
>>> Yeah, why did you repost your usual lying bullshit?
>>>
>>>> Summary: No child is ever involved in any abortion. End of story.
>>>> So, what else is new?
>>>
>>> The fact that your summary is a lie is not new. See the following,
>>> from a non-biased website:
>>> http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/child-term.html
>>> Here is the relevant excerpt:
>>> Child
>>> 1) A person's offspring of any age, which can include biological
>>> offspring, unborn children, adopted children, stepchildren, foster
>>> children, and children born outside of marriage.
>>>
>>>
>>Anybody who considers a fertilized oocyte to be an "unborn child" is just
>>plain crazy.
>
> At the moment of conception, God infuses a soul into the body. From that
> moment on, a human being is starting a journey to God's arms.
will fail to implant, and those souls will be right back in God's arms
within a few days? Seems like a pretty pointless endeavor to me.
MarkA
Oct 10, 2012, 10:58:34 PM10/10/12
to
risk of sudden death from pulmonary embolism, or the development of
chronic disease, such as diabetes. That simple fact alone is
justification for terminating any pregnancy you don't absolutely want.
Father Haskell
Oct 11, 2012, 2:19:31 AM10/11/12
to
linuxgal
Oct 11, 2012, 6:47:00 AM10/11/12
to
MarkA wrote:
>
> I know I've explained this to you before, Patrick: pregnancy carries the
> risk of sudden death from pulmonary embolism, or the development of
> chronic disease, such as diabetes. That simple fact alone is
> justification for terminating any pregnancy you don't absolutely want.
>
Well, remember, in Catholic theology, this life doesn't count, it's the
>
> I know I've explained this to you before, Patrick: pregnancy carries the
> risk of sudden death from pulmonary embolism, or the development of
> chronic disease, such as diabetes. That simple fact alone is
> justification for terminating any pregnancy you don't absolutely want.
>
next life that's important, so it is absolutely imperative that a woman
carries her baby full term and gets it baptized. After that, one or
both can die, no skin off the Pope's dick.
--
Veteran of the Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force (1990-1951)
Dakota
Oct 11, 2012, 7:23:49 AM10/11/12
to
Limbo. Oh. Wait. That was the way I was taught in Catholic school
decades ago. Some later Pope decided that was nonsense. Now they go
directly to hell.
MarkA
Oct 11, 2012, 8:13:10 AM10/11/12
to
merciful god!
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
Don Martin
Oct 11, 2012, 8:40:36 AM10/11/12
to
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
Patrick
Oct 11, 2012, 8:59:58 AM10/11/12
to
"Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:hlwdjsd2-8B29B3...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu...
But then, you will misss out the opportunity of a lifetime.
You will miss me.
news:hlwdjsd2-8B29B3...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu...
> In article <T1ods.37253$VC5....@fed15.iad>,
> "Patrick" <PBARK...@r.com> wrote:
>
>> "Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in
>> > You have yet to provide any evidence that any such thing as a "soul"
>> > even exists. Until you do that, your argument is null and void.
>>
>> Then why do you keep crawling back for more?
>
> You invade OUR home and complain when we defend it? Seriously?
Lock the door. Killfile me.
> "Patrick" <PBARK...@r.com> wrote:
>
>> "Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in
>> > You have yet to provide any evidence that any such thing as a "soul"
>> > even exists. Until you do that, your argument is null and void.
>>
>> Then why do you keep crawling back for more?
>
> You invade OUR home and complain when we defend it? Seriously?
But then, you will misss out the opportunity of a lifetime.
You will miss me.
Patrick
Oct 11, 2012, 9:06:48 AM10/11/12
to
"MarkA" <som...@somewhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:pan.2012.10.11....@somewhere.invalid...
And we will continue to differ on this point.
I will soon be going to Boston. On a plane.
Just my sitting on that plane could cause clots in my legs.
My cruise later could cause me to puke my brains out.
news:pan.2012.10.11....@somewhere.invalid...
I will soon be going to Boston. On a plane.
Just my sitting on that plane could cause clots in my legs.
My cruise later could cause me to puke my brains out.
Patrick
Oct 11, 2012, 9:07:44 AM10/11/12
to
"linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
news:doednSU7YJc9PuvN...@giganews.com...
> MarkA wrote:
>>
>> I know I've explained this to you before, Patrick: pregnancy carries the
>> risk of sudden death from pulmonary embolism, or the development of
>> chronic disease, such as diabetes. That simple fact alone is
>> justification for terminating any pregnancy you don't absolutely want.
>>
>
> Well, remember, in Catholic theology, this life doesn't count, it's the
> next life that's important, so it is absolutely imperative that a woman
> carries her baby full term and gets it baptized. After that, one or both
> can die, no skin off the Pope's dick.
Hmmmm - you really are excited about dicks, aren't you?
>>
>> I know I've explained this to you before, Patrick: pregnancy carries the
>> risk of sudden death from pulmonary embolism, or the development of
>> chronic disease, such as diabetes. That simple fact alone is
>> justification for terminating any pregnancy you don't absolutely want.
>>
>
> Well, remember, in Catholic theology, this life doesn't count, it's the
> next life that's important, so it is absolutely imperative that a woman
> carries her baby full term and gets it baptized. After that, one or both
> can die, no skin off the Pope's dick.
duke
Oct 11, 2012, 11:37:57 AM10/11/12
to
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:30:08 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:
God said it does. Until you can prove God wrong, your argument is of a stupid
immature woman trying to make an invalid point.
wrote:
immature woman trying to make an invalid point.
duke
Oct 11, 2012, 11:44:44 AM10/11/12
to
born with original sin, human beings are well below par in makeup. That's the
reason all living things die.
>, and those souls will be right back in God's arms
>within a few days
soul is indestructible..
>? Seems like a pretty pointless endeavor to me.
duke
Oct 11, 2012, 11:46:48 AM10/11/12
to
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 06:23:49 -0500, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>>> At the moment of conception, God infuses a soul into the body. From that
>>> moment on, a human being is starting a journey to God's arms.
>>
>> If that's the case, why is it that the majority of fertilized oocytes
>> will fail to implant, and those souls will be right back in God's arms
>> within a few days? Seems like a pretty pointless endeavor to me.
>Not unless they've been baptized. If they haven't they end up in
>Limbo. Oh. Wait. That was the way I was taught in Catholic school
>decades ago. Some later Pope decided that was nonsense. Now they go
>directly to hell.
No, you should has stuck with our original thought. Truth is that no man can
>>> At the moment of conception, God infuses a soul into the body. From that
>>> moment on, a human being is starting a journey to God's arms.
>>
>> If that's the case, why is it that the majority of fertilized oocytes
>> will fail to implant, and those souls will be right back in God's arms
>> within a few days? Seems like a pretty pointless endeavor to me.
>Not unless they've been baptized. If they haven't they end up in
>Limbo. Oh. Wait. That was the way I was taught in Catholic school
>decades ago. Some later Pope decided that was nonsense. Now they go
>directly to hell.
state definitively what happens to the unbaptized soul.
duke
Oct 11, 2012, 11:47:21 AM10/11/12
to
MarkA
Oct 11, 2012, 12:56:56 PM10/11/12
to
before getting on the plane, despite studies that show that it really
doesn't do any good. My wife, who has an anti-clotting factor deficiency,
gives herself subcutaneous injections of heparin before going on a long
car or plane trip. She also gave herself daily heparin injections when
she was pregnant, because, after all, pregnancy increases your risk of
deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. But we've covered that.
MarkA
Oct 11, 2012, 1:11:22 PM10/11/12
to
current body is geared toward obtaining and digesting food. If there is
no such thing as death, there is no need to eat, and really nothing that
could be eaten, unless you like chewing on rocks. I suppose you could eat
a plant or animal, and have it come out the other end a few days later,
alive and well. That would be kind of creepy, though.
How about the heart? All it does is to pump blood to keep the body alive.
No need for that if there is no death. I can see where lungs might be
useful for speaking, but breathing wouldn't be necessary, either.
This might be a good premise for a "Mr Deity" segment:
Mr Deity: I just cast Adam and Eve out of Paradise. We have to put Death
into the World!
Larry: All those animals, as well as people, will have to be completely
re-designed. We'll be up all night!
Mr Deity: What? Why?
Larry: Well, if they can now die, they'll have to do stuff to stay alive.
Like eat food, and breathe air. They'll need organs to do all that.
Mr Deity: But I already gave them those organs. I knew they wouldn't stay
in Paradise!
Larry: Are you saying they DON'T have "Free Will"? You better check with
Marketing before you say anything more....
Mr Deity: Well, yeah, they have Free Will. It's just that I knew ahead of
time what decisions they were going to make. It's *sort of* like having
Free Will, isn't it?
>
>>, and those souls will be right back in God's arms within a few days
>
> No, souls are infused forever with one conception. The body will die,
> but the soul is indestructible..
wishes? I thought He was supposed to be omnipotent.
>
>>? Seems like a pretty pointless endeavor to me.
>
> God is far more intelligent than you.
>
MarkA
Oct 11, 2012, 1:13:51 PM10/11/12
to
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:46:48 -0500, duke wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 06:23:49 -0500, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>> At the moment of conception, God infuses a soul into the body. From
>>>> that moment on, a human being is starting a journey to God's arms.
>>>
>>> If that's the case, why is it that the majority of fertilized oocytes
>>> will fail to implant, and those souls will be right back in God's arms
>>> within a few days? Seems like a pretty pointless endeavor to me.
>
>>Not unless they've been baptized. If they haven't they end up in Limbo.
>>Oh. Wait. That was the way I was taught in Catholic school decades ago.
>>Some later Pope decided that was nonsense. Now they go directly to hell.
>
> No, you should has stuck with our original thought. Truth is that no man
> can state definitively what happens to the unbaptized soul.
>
Talk about unintended humor! Men are the ONLY ones who can say what
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 06:23:49 -0500, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>> At the moment of conception, God infuses a soul into the body. From
>>>> that moment on, a human being is starting a journey to God's arms.
>>>
>>> If that's the case, why is it that the majority of fertilized oocytes
>>> will fail to implant, and those souls will be right back in God's arms
>>> within a few days? Seems like a pretty pointless endeavor to me.
>
>>Not unless they've been baptized. If they haven't they end up in Limbo.
>>Oh. Wait. That was the way I was taught in Catholic school decades ago.
>>Some later Pope decided that was nonsense. Now they go directly to hell.
>
> No, you should has stuck with our original thought. Truth is that no man
> can state definitively what happens to the unbaptized soul.
>
happens to the unbaptized soul, since they are the ones who came up with
the idea in the first place.
MarkA
Oct 11, 2012, 1:15:00 PM10/11/12
to
Jeanne Douglas
Oct 11, 2012, 5:13:38 PM10/11/12
to
In article <topd78pifk7mqvagt...@4ax.com>,
You have yet to provide any evidence that this god of yours exists.
Until you do that, your argument is null and void.
Jeanne Douglas
Oct 11, 2012, 5:14:42 PM10/11/12
to
In article <npzds.66053$PB3....@fed02.iad>,
I'd miss the entertainment value of your insanity.
"Patrick" <PBARK...@r.com> wrote:
> "Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hlwdjsd2-8B29B3...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu...
> > In article <T1ods.37253$VC5....@fed15.iad>,
> > "Patrick" <PBARK...@r.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in
> >> > You have yet to provide any evidence that any such thing as a "soul"
> >> > even exists. Until you do that, your argument is null and void.
> >>
> >> Then why do you keep crawling back for more?
> >
> > You invade OUR home and complain when we defend it? Seriously?
>
> Lock the door. Killfile me.
> But then, you will misss out the opportunity of a lifetime.
> You will miss me.
You're right.
> "Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hlwdjsd2-8B29B3...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu...
> > In article <T1ods.37253$VC5....@fed15.iad>,
> > "Patrick" <PBARK...@r.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in
> >> > You have yet to provide any evidence that any such thing as a "soul"
> >> > even exists. Until you do that, your argument is null and void.
> >>
> >> Then why do you keep crawling back for more?
> >
> > You invade OUR home and complain when we defend it? Seriously?
>
> Lock the door. Killfile me.
> But then, you will misss out the opportunity of a lifetime.
> You will miss me.
I'd miss the entertainment value of your insanity.
linuxgal
Oct 11, 2012, 9:46:56 PM10/11/12
to
MarkA
Oct 11, 2012, 10:37:21 PM10/11/12
to
linuxgal
Oct 11, 2012, 10:42:48 PM10/11/12
to
Patrick
Oct 12, 2012, 8:22:07 AM10/12/12
to
news:BoWdna6RBNQ_HurN...@giganews.com...
I've got one, honey.
Patrick
Oct 12, 2012, 8:22:37 AM10/12/12
to
news:d4ydnc0JSKgX6-rN...@giganews.com...
> MarkA wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:46:48 -0500, duke wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> No, you should has stuck with our original thought. Truth is that no
>>> man
>>> can state definitively what happens to the unbaptized soul.
>>>
>> Talk about unintended humor! Men are the ONLY ones who can say what
>> happens to the unbaptized soul, since they are the ones who came up with
>> the idea in the first place.
>>
>
> And also because there are no angels and animals don't talk.
Prove it.
>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:46:48 -0500, duke wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> No, you should has stuck with our original thought. Truth is that no
>>> man
>>> can state definitively what happens to the unbaptized soul.
>>>
>> Talk about unintended humor! Men are the ONLY ones who can say what
>> happens to the unbaptized soul, since they are the ones who came up with
>> the idea in the first place.
>>
>
> And also because there are no angels and animals don't talk.
linuxgal
Oct 12, 2012, 9:45:39 AM10/12/12
to
of like believers in talking snakes.
linuxgal
Oct 12, 2012, 9:46:38 AM10/12/12
to
> news:BoWdna6RBNQ_HurN...@giganews.com...
community.
>> Patrick wrote:
>>> Hmmmm - you really are excited about dicks, aren't you?
>>
>> You must be disappointed.
>
> I've got one, honey.
Just so nobody forgets, Patrick here represents the Roman Catholic
>>> Hmmmm - you really are excited about dicks, aren't you?
>>
>> You must be disappointed.
>
> I've got one, honey.
community.
Patrick
Oct 12, 2012, 11:11:46 AM10/12/12
to
news:hN-dnSZaDO-lguXN...@giganews.com...
You are not a man.
You don't have one.
Simple.
> Patrick wrote:
>> "linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
>> news:BoWdna6RBNQ_HurN...@giganews.com...
>>> Patrick wrote:
>>>> Hmmmm - you really are excited about dicks, aren't you?
>>>
>>> You must be disappointed.
>>
>> I've got one, honey.
>
> Just so nobody forgets, Patrick here represents the Roman Catholic
> community.
All men have one.
>> "linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
>> news:BoWdna6RBNQ_HurN...@giganews.com...
>>> Patrick wrote:
>>>> Hmmmm - you really are excited about dicks, aren't you?
>>>
>>> You must be disappointed.
>>
>> I've got one, honey.
>
> Just so nobody forgets, Patrick here represents the Roman Catholic
> community.
You are not a man.
You don't have one.
Simple.
Patrick
Oct 12, 2012, 11:12:45 AM10/12/12
to
"linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
news:hN-dnSdaDO9gg-XN...@giganews.com...
diversion rejected.
duke
Oct 12, 2012, 11:46:20 AM10/12/12
to
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 14:13:38 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
And you will burn in hell until hell is null and void.
duke
Oct 12, 2012, 11:50:39 AM10/12/12
to
of God. It is man specifically that expressed the idea that, shirley, our
loving God would not relegate the unbaptized dead infant to hell forever as it
is no fault of his own. In recent times, numbuts, we came to accept that God
never said one way or the otter for sure, so we no longer push this idea over
that idea.
Do you understand that now, numbnuts?
duke
Oct 12, 2012, 11:54:31 AM10/12/12
to
> Most of our
>current body is geared toward obtaining and digesting food. If there is
>no such thing as death, there is no need to eat, and really nothing that
>could be eaten, unless you like chewing on rocks. I suppose you could eat
>a plant or animal, and have it come out the other end a few days later,
>alive and well. That would be kind of creepy, though.
>How about the heart? All it does is to pump blood to keep the body alive.
>No need for that if there is no death. I can see where lungs might be
>useful for speaking, but breathing wouldn't be necessary, either.
Mike Painter
Oct 12, 2012, 12:44:22 PM10/12/12
to
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 08:22:07 -0400, "Patrick" <PBARK...@r.com>
wrote:
>
>"linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
>news:BoWdna6RBNQ_HurN...@giganews.com...
>> Patrick wrote:
>>> "linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
>>> news:doednSU7YJc9PuvN...@giganews.com...
>>>> MarkA wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I know I've explained this to you before, Patrick: pregnancy carries
>>>>> the
>>>>> risk of sudden death from pulmonary embolism, or the development of
>>>>> chronic disease, such as diabetes. That simple fact alone is
>>>>> justification for terminating any pregnancy you don't absolutely want.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, remember, in Catholic theology, this life doesn't count, it's the
>>>> next life that's important, so it is absolutely imperative that a woman
>>>> carries her baby full term and gets it baptized. After that, one or
>>>> both
>>>> can die, no skin off the Pope's dick.
>>>
>>> Hmmmm - you really are excited about dicks, aren't you?
>>
>> You must be disappointed.
>
>I've got one, honey.
>
When Patrick tried Viagra he grew six inches taller.
>
>"linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
>news:BoWdna6RBNQ_HurN...@giganews.com...
>> Patrick wrote:
>>> "linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
>>> news:doednSU7YJc9PuvN...@giganews.com...
>>>> MarkA wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I know I've explained this to you before, Patrick: pregnancy carries
>>>>> the
>>>>> risk of sudden death from pulmonary embolism, or the development of
>>>>> chronic disease, such as diabetes. That simple fact alone is
>>>>> justification for terminating any pregnancy you don't absolutely want.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, remember, in Catholic theology, this life doesn't count, it's the
>>>> next life that's important, so it is absolutely imperative that a woman
>>>> carries her baby full term and gets it baptized. After that, one or
>>>> both
>>>> can die, no skin off the Pope's dick.
>>>
>>> Hmmmm - you really are excited about dicks, aren't you?
>>
>> You must be disappointed.
>
>I've got one, honey.
>
Syd M.
Oct 12, 2012, 12:52:30 PM10/12/12
to
On Oct 12, 11:55 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 13:11:22 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> >On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:44:44 -0500, duke wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 22:55:05 -0400, MarkA <some...@somewhere.invalid>
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 13:11:22 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> >On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:44:44 -0500, duke wrote:
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:15:10 -0500, duke wrote:
>
> >>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:34:47 -0400, MarkA <some...@somewhere.invalid>
>
> >>>On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:15:10 -0500, duke wrote:
>
Syd M.
Oct 12, 2012, 12:52:49 PM10/12/12
to
On Oct 12, 11:51 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 13:13:51 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> >On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:46:48 -0500, duke wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 06:23:49 -0500, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> At the moment of conception, God infuses a soul into the body. From
> >>>>> that moment on, a human being is starting a journey to God's arms.
>
> >>>> If that's the case, why is it that the majority of fertilized oocytes
> >>>> will fail to implant, and those souls will be right back in God's arms
> >>>> within a few days? Seems like a pretty pointless endeavor to me.
>
> >>>Not unless they've been baptized. If they haven't they end up in Limbo.
> >>>Oh. Wait. That was the way I was taught in Catholic school decades ago.
> >>>Some later Pope decided that was nonsense. Now they go directly to hell.
>
> >> No, you should has stuck with our original thought. Truth is that no man
> >> can state definitively what happens to the unbaptized soul.
> >Talk about unintended humor! Men are the ONLY ones who can say what
> >happens to the unbaptized soul, since they are the ones who came up with
> >the idea in the first place.
>
> Exactly, numbnuts. Scripture states
Not evidence, asshole.
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 13:13:51 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> >On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:46:48 -0500, duke wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 06:23:49 -0500, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> At the moment of conception, God infuses a soul into the body. From
> >>>>> that moment on, a human being is starting a journey to God's arms.
>
> >>>> If that's the case, why is it that the majority of fertilized oocytes
> >>>> will fail to implant, and those souls will be right back in God's arms
> >>>> within a few days? Seems like a pretty pointless endeavor to me.
>
> >>>Not unless they've been baptized. If they haven't they end up in Limbo.
> >>>Oh. Wait. That was the way I was taught in Catholic school decades ago.
> >>>Some later Pope decided that was nonsense. Now they go directly to hell.
>
> >> No, you should has stuck with our original thought. Truth is that no man
> >> can state definitively what happens to the unbaptized soul.
> >Talk about unintended humor! Men are the ONLY ones who can say what
> >happens to the unbaptized soul, since they are the ones who came up with
> >the idea in the first place.
>
> Exactly, numbnuts. Scripture states
Syd M.
Oct 12, 2012, 12:53:20 PM10/12/12
to
On Oct 12, 11:46 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 14:13:38 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <topd78pifk7mqvagteef9i56pac9nm1...@4ax.com>,
> > duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:30:08 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >In article <034b78picedf311gcv27evndc9ag4sa...@4ax.com>,
> >> > duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:34:47 -0400, MarkA <some...@somewhere.invalid>
<Yawn> Desperate Dork now resorts to the usual empty threat.
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 14:13:38 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <topd78pifk7mqvagteef9i56pac9nm1...@4ax.com>,
> > duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:30:08 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >In article <034b78picedf311gcv27evndc9ag4sa...@4ax.com>,
> >> > duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:34:47 -0400, MarkA <some...@somewhere.invalid>
Syd M.
Oct 12, 2012, 12:54:18 PM10/12/12
to
On Oct 12, 11:11 am, "Patrick" <PBARKER...@r.com> wrote:
> "linuxgal" <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hN-dnSZaDO-lguXN...@giganews.com...
>
> > Patrick wrote:
> >> "linuxgal" <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
> "linuxgal" <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hN-dnSZaDO-lguXN...@giganews.com...
>
> > Patrick wrote:
> >> "linuxgal" <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
> >>news:BoWdna6RBNQ_HurN...@giganews.com...
> >>> Patrick wrote:
> >>>> Hmmmm - you really are excited about dicks, aren't you?
>
> >>> You must be disappointed.
>
> >> I've got one, honey.
>
> > Just so nobody forgets, Patrick here represents the Roman Catholic
> > community.
>
> All men have one.
> You are not a man.
> You don't have one.
> Simple.
Yes, you certainly are.
> >>> Patrick wrote:
> >>>> Hmmmm - you really are excited about dicks, aren't you?
>
> >>> You must be disappointed.
>
> >> I've got one, honey.
>
> > Just so nobody forgets, Patrick here represents the Roman Catholic
> > community.
>
> All men have one.
> You are not a man.
> You don't have one.
> Simple.
Syd M.
Oct 12, 2012, 12:54:45 PM10/12/12
to
On Oct 12, 11:12 am, "Patrick" <PBARKER...@r.com> wrote:
> "linuxgal" <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hN-dnSdaDO9gg-XN...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Patrick wrote:
> >> "linuxgal" <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
Only diversion is YOURS.
> "linuxgal" <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hN-dnSdaDO9gg-XN...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Patrick wrote:
> >> "linuxgal" <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
> >>news:d4ydnc0JSKgX6-rN...@giganews.com...
> >>> MarkA wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:46:48 -0500, duke wrote:
>
> >>>>> No, you should has stuck with our original thought. Truth is that no
> >>>>> man
> >>>>> can state definitively what happens to the unbaptized soul.
>
> >>>> Talk about unintended humor! Men are the ONLY ones who can say what
> >>>> happens to the unbaptized soul, since they are the ones who came up
> >>>> with
> >>>> the idea in the first place.
>
> >>> And also because there are no angels and animals don't talk.
>
> >> Prove it.
>
> > Okay, except for parrots, but they just copy the sounds they hear. Sort
> > of like believers in talking snakes.
>
> diversion noted.
> diversion rejected.
Nope.
> >>> MarkA wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:46:48 -0500, duke wrote:
>
> >>>>> No, you should has stuck with our original thought. Truth is that no
> >>>>> man
> >>>>> can state definitively what happens to the unbaptized soul.
>
> >>>> Talk about unintended humor! Men are the ONLY ones who can say what
> >>>> happens to the unbaptized soul, since they are the ones who came up
> >>>> with
> >>>> the idea in the first place.
>
> >>> And also because there are no angels and animals don't talk.
>
> >> Prove it.
>
> > Okay, except for parrots, but they just copy the sounds they hear. Sort
> > of like believers in talking snakes.
>
> diversion noted.
> diversion rejected.
Only diversion is YOURS.
Uergil
Oct 12, 2012, 3:17:41 PM10/12/12
to
In article <g5fg7816rfb1l6n86...@4ax.com>,
A use/need for one must have come first, as that is how Evolution works.
Variations which confer no advantage tend not to be preserved.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less
remote from the- truth who believes nothing than
he who believes what is wrong.
Thomas Jefferson
A use/need for one must have come first, as that is how Evolution works.
Variations which confer no advantage tend not to be preserved.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less
remote from the- truth who believes nothing than
he who believes what is wrong.
Thomas Jefferson
Uergil
Oct 12, 2012, 3:31:29 PM10/12/12
to
In article <fYTds.580$ey7...@fe33.iad>, "Patrick" <PBARK...@r.com>
wrote:
Actually some animals do 'talk', e.g., prairie dogs have quite different
calls to warn of hawks versus coyotes and wolves. But they do have quite
limited vocabularies.
As to the existence of angels, there is absolutely no objective physical
evidence supporting any claims of angelic existence, so no reason to
suppose any do exist.
And Mitt wants to make all abortions illegal!
The Best Way To Lower Abortion Rates Is To Give All Women Free And
Effective Birth Control
http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/04/14224132-free-birth-control-cu
ts-abortion-rate-dramatically-study-finds?lite
wrote:
calls to warn of hawks versus coyotes and wolves. But they do have quite
limited vocabularies.
As to the existence of angels, there is absolutely no objective physical
evidence supporting any claims of angelic existence, so no reason to
suppose any do exist.
And Mitt wants to make all abortions illegal!
The Best Way To Lower Abortion Rates Is To Give All Women Free And
Effective Birth Control
http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/04/14224132-free-birth-control-cu
ts-abortion-rate-dramatically-study-finds?lite
duke
Oct 12, 2012, 4:11:22 PM10/12/12
to
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 13:31:29 -0600, Uergil <Uer...@uer.net> wrote:
>In article <fYTds.580$ey7...@fe33.iad>, "Patrick" <PBARK...@r.com>
>wrote:
>
>> "linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
>> news:d4ydnc0JSKgX6-rN...@giganews.com...
>> > MarkA wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:46:48 -0500, duke wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> No, you should has stuck with our original thought. Truth is that no
>> >>> man
>> >>> can state definitively what happens to the unbaptized soul.
>> >>>
>> >> Talk about unintended humor! Men are the ONLY ones who can say what
>> >> happens to the unbaptized soul, since they are the ones who came up with
>> >> the idea in the first place.
>> >>
>> >
>> > And also because there are no angels and animals don't talk.
>> Prove it.
>Actually some animals do 'talk', e.g., prairie dogs have quite different
>calls to warn of hawks versus coyotes and wolves. But they do have quite
>limited vocabularies.
Did a prairie dog tell you that?
>In article <fYTds.580$ey7...@fe33.iad>, "Patrick" <PBARK...@r.com>
>wrote:
>
>> "linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
>> news:d4ydnc0JSKgX6-rN...@giganews.com...
>> > MarkA wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:46:48 -0500, duke wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> No, you should has stuck with our original thought. Truth is that no
>> >>> man
>> >>> can state definitively what happens to the unbaptized soul.
>> >>>
>> >> Talk about unintended humor! Men are the ONLY ones who can say what
>> >> happens to the unbaptized soul, since they are the ones who came up with
>> >> the idea in the first place.
>> >>
>> >
>> > And also because there are no angels and animals don't talk.
>> Prove it.
>Actually some animals do 'talk', e.g., prairie dogs have quite different
>calls to warn of hawks versus coyotes and wolves. But they do have quite
>limited vocabularies.
>As to the existence of angels, there is absolutely no objective physical
>evidence supporting any claims of angelic existence, so no reason to
>suppose any do exist.
linuxgal
Oct 12, 2012, 4:21:23 PM10/12/12
to
Uergil wrote:
> In article <fYTds.580$ey7...@fe33.iad>, "Patrick" <PBARK...@r.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
>> news:d4ydnc0JSKgX6-rN...@giganews.com...
>>> MarkA wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:46:48 -0500, duke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you should has stuck with our original thought. Truth is that no
>>>>> man
>>>>> can state definitively what happens to the unbaptized soul.
>>>>>
>>>> Talk about unintended humor! Men are the ONLY ones who can say what
>>>> happens to the unbaptized soul, since they are the ones who came up with
>>>> the idea in the first place.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And also because there are no angels and animals don't talk.
>>
>> Prove it.
>
> Actually some animals do 'talk', e.g., prairie dogs have quite different
> calls to warn of hawks versus coyotes and wolves. But they do have quite
> limited vocabularies.
They sure as shit don't cover the sacraments.
> In article <fYTds.580$ey7...@fe33.iad>, "Patrick" <PBARK...@r.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
>> news:d4ydnc0JSKgX6-rN...@giganews.com...
>>> MarkA wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:46:48 -0500, duke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you should has stuck with our original thought. Truth is that no
>>>>> man
>>>>> can state definitively what happens to the unbaptized soul.
>>>>>
>>>> Talk about unintended humor! Men are the ONLY ones who can say what
>>>> happens to the unbaptized soul, since they are the ones who came up with
>>>> the idea in the first place.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And also because there are no angels and animals don't talk.
>>
>> Prove it.
>
> Actually some animals do 'talk', e.g., prairie dogs have quite different
> calls to warn of hawks versus coyotes and wolves. But they do have quite
> limited vocabularies.
Brian E. Clark
Oct 12, 2012, 5:23:37 PM10/12/12
to
In article <gsWdnT9viPAg5uXN...@giganews.com>,
linu...@cleanposts.com says...
> > Actually some animals do 'talk', e.g., prairie dogs have quite different
> > calls to warn of hawks versus coyotes and wolves. But they do have quite
> > limited vocabularies.
>
> They sure as shit don't cover the sacraments.
That's a point in their favor.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
linu...@cleanposts.com says...
> > Actually some animals do 'talk', e.g., prairie dogs have quite different
> > calls to warn of hawks versus coyotes and wolves. But they do have quite
> > limited vocabularies.
>
> They sure as shit don't cover the sacraments.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
MarkA
Oct 12, 2012, 5:52:41 PM10/12/12
to
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 13:17:41 -0600, Uergil wrote:
> In article <g5fg7816rfb1l6n86...@4ax.com>,
> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Which came first: the heart or a need for one?
>
> A use/need for one must have come first, as that is how Evolution works.
>
> Variations which confer no advantage tend not to be preserved.
No, if a variation is completely neutral, it will randomly distribute
> In article <g5fg7816rfb1l6n86...@4ax.com>,
> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Which came first: the heart or a need for one?
>
> A use/need for one must have come first, as that is how Evolution works.
>
> Variations which confer no advantage tend not to be preserved.
throughout the population.
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
MarkA
Oct 12, 2012, 6:05:42 PM10/12/12
to
the Father except through me." Christians have widely interpreted that to
mean that only by accepting Jesus as your Saviour can you get into Heaven.
Many Christians, Catholics in particular, also believe that the soul
enters the body at the moment of conception (which is not actually a
moment, BTW, but that's a discussion for another day).
This creates a conflict, when you consider that for every person alive
today, there are at least 3 or 4 who died within a few days of conception,
because their blastocyst did not implant in the wall of their mother's
uterus. Clearly, they can't go to Heaven. Equally clearly, they don't
deserve to go to Hell, either. And, there's a LOT of them.
For a while, the RCC solved the problem by postulating the existence of
"Limbo", where everyone goes if they don't qualify for either Heaven or
Hell. Recently, the Pope decided that Limbo wasn't such a good idea after
all, so they stopped promoting it.
So, now, if you ask a "good Catholic" what happens to the soul of an
unbaptized baby that dies, they say, "Idunno", and leave it at that.
I'm waiting for the Pope to realize that, since the Bible doesn't say
anything against abortion or birth control, either, he should maybe apply
the same "Idunno" standard there, too?
I'm not holding my breath.
MarkA
Oct 12, 2012, 6:07:49 PM10/12/12
to
infinitely more useful.
MarkA
Oct 12, 2012, 6:10:35 PM10/12/12
to
Uergil
Oct 12, 2012, 6:19:27 PM10/12/12
to
In article <RqWds.170$NB2...@fe12.iad>, "Patrick" <PBARK...@r.com>
Too many, like "Patrick", seem to think it can replace their brain!
The Best Way To Lower Abortion Rates Is To Give All Women Free And
Effective Birth Control
http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/04/14224132-free-birth-control-cu
ts-abortion-rate-dramatically-study-finds?lite
***************************************
Obama is on the side of common people.
Romney is on the side of the wealthy.
Whose side will you be on?
***************************************
wrote:
> "linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
> news:hN-dnSZaDO-lguXN...@giganews.com...
> > Patrick wrote:
> >> "linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
> >> news:BoWdna6RBNQ_HurN...@giganews.com...
> >>> Patrick wrote:
> >>>> Hmmmm - you really are excited about dicks, aren't you?
> >>>
> >>> You must be disappointed.
> >>
> >> I've got one, honey.
> >
> > Just so nobody forgets, Patrick here represents the Roman Catholic
> > community.
>
> All men have one.
> You are not a man.
> You don't have one.
> Simple.
Having a dick does not confer wisdom.
> "linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
> news:hN-dnSZaDO-lguXN...@giganews.com...
> > Patrick wrote:
> >> "linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
> >> news:BoWdna6RBNQ_HurN...@giganews.com...
> >>> Patrick wrote:
> >>>> Hmmmm - you really are excited about dicks, aren't you?
> >>>
> >>> You must be disappointed.
> >>
> >> I've got one, honey.
> >
> > Just so nobody forgets, Patrick here represents the Roman Catholic
> > community.
>
> All men have one.
> You are not a man.
> You don't have one.
> Simple.
Too many, like "Patrick", seem to think it can replace their brain!
The Best Way To Lower Abortion Rates Is To Give All Women Free And
Effective Birth Control
http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/04/14224132-free-birth-control-cu
ts-abortion-rate-dramatically-study-finds?lite
Obama is on the side of common people.
Romney is on the side of the wealthy.
Whose side will you be on?
***************************************
Paul Duca
Oct 12, 2012, 6:41:35 PM10/12/12
to
On Oct 12, 11:11 am, "Patrick" <PBARKER...@r.com> wrote:
> "linuxgal" <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hN-dnSZaDO-lguXN...@giganews.com...
>
> > Patrick wrote:
> >> "linuxgal" <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
> I don't know if I am still a man
> That makes things complex
> "linuxgal" <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hN-dnSZaDO-lguXN...@giganews.com...
>
> > Patrick wrote:
> >> "linuxgal" <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
> >>news:BoWdna6RBNQ_HurN...@giganews.com...
> >>> Patrick wrote:
> >>>> Hmmmm - you really are excited about dicks, aren't you?
>
> >>> You must be disappointed.
>
> >> I've got one, honey.
>
> > Just so nobody forgets, Patrick here represents the Roman Catholic
> > community.
>
> All men have one.
> I never use mine.
> >>> Patrick wrote:
> >>>> Hmmmm - you really are excited about dicks, aren't you?
>
> >>> You must be disappointed.
>
> >> I've got one, honey.
>
> > Just so nobody forgets, Patrick here represents the Roman Catholic
> > community.
>
> All men have one.
> I don't know if I am still a man
> That makes things complex
Paul Duca
Oct 12, 2012, 6:42:46 PM10/12/12
to
On Oct 12, 11:51 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 13:13:51 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> >On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:46:48 -0500, duke wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 06:23:49 -0500, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> At the moment of conception, God infuses a soul into the body. From
> >>>>> that moment on, a human being is starting a journey to God's arms.
>
> >>>> If that's the case, why is it that the majority of fertilized oocytes
> >>>> will fail to implant, and those souls will be right back in God's arms
> >>>> within a few days? Seems like a pretty pointless endeavor to me.
>
> >>>Not unless they've been baptized. If they haven't they end up in Limbo.
> >>>Oh. Wait. That was the way I was taught in Catholic school decades ago.
> >>>Some later Pope decided that was nonsense. Now they go directly to hell.
>
> >> No, you should has stuck with our original thought. Truth is that no man
> >> can state definitively what happens to the unbaptized soul.
> >Talk about unintended humor! Men are the ONLY ones who can say what
> >happens to the unbaptized soul, since they are the ones who came up with
> >the idea in the first place.
>
> Exactly, numbnuts. Scripture states that only the baptized can see the kingdom
> of God. It is man specifically that expressed the idea that, shirley, our
> loving God would not relegate the unbaptized dead infant to hell forever as it
> is no fault of his own. In recent times, numbuts, we came to accept that God
> never said one way or the otter for sure, so we no longer push this idea over
> that idea.
>
Could you explain WHY, all of a sudden Catholics began shedding
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 13:13:51 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> >On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:46:48 -0500, duke wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 06:23:49 -0500, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> At the moment of conception, God infuses a soul into the body. From
> >>>>> that moment on, a human being is starting a journey to God's arms.
>
> >>>> If that's the case, why is it that the majority of fertilized oocytes
> >>>> will fail to implant, and those souls will be right back in God's arms
> >>>> within a few days? Seems like a pretty pointless endeavor to me.
>
> >>>Not unless they've been baptized. If they haven't they end up in Limbo.
> >>>Oh. Wait. That was the way I was taught in Catholic school decades ago.
> >>>Some later Pope decided that was nonsense. Now they go directly to hell.
>
> >> No, you should has stuck with our original thought. Truth is that no man
> >> can state definitively what happens to the unbaptized soul.
> >Talk about unintended humor! Men are the ONLY ones who can say what
> >happens to the unbaptized soul, since they are the ones who came up with
> >the idea in the first place.
>
> Exactly, numbnuts. Scripture states that only the baptized can see the kingdom
> of God. It is man specifically that expressed the idea that, shirley, our
> loving God would not relegate the unbaptized dead infant to hell forever as it
> is no fault of his own. In recent times, numbuts, we came to accept that God
> never said one way or the otter for sure, so we no longer push this idea over
> that idea.
>
crocodile tears over babies in Hell?
Paul
Patrick
Oct 12, 2012, 6:43:03 PM10/12/12
to
"Uergil" <Uer...@uer.net> wrote in message
news:Uergil-33F01E....@bignews.usenetmonster.com...
> In article <RqWds.170$NB2...@fe12.iad>, "Patrick" <PBARK...@r.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
>> news:hN-dnSZaDO-lguXN...@giganews.com...
>> > Patrick wrote:
>> >> "linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:BoWdna6RBNQ_HurN...@giganews.com...
>> >>> Patrick wrote:
>> >>>> Hmmmm - you really are excited about dicks, aren't you?
>> >>>
>> >>> You must be disappointed.
>> >>
>> >> I've got one, honey.
>> >
>> > Just so nobody forgets, Patrick here represents the Roman Catholic
>> > community.
>>
>> All men have one.
>> You are not a man.
>> You don't have one.
>> Simple.
>
> Having a dick does not confer wisdom.
> Too many, like "Patrick", seem to think it can replace their brain!
Not my claim, honey.
> wrote:
>
>> "linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
>> news:hN-dnSZaDO-lguXN...@giganews.com...
>> > Patrick wrote:
>> >> "linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:BoWdna6RBNQ_HurN...@giganews.com...
>> >>> Patrick wrote:
>> >>>> Hmmmm - you really are excited about dicks, aren't you?
>> >>>
>> >>> You must be disappointed.
>> >>
>> >> I've got one, honey.
>> >
>> > Just so nobody forgets, Patrick here represents the Roman Catholic
>> > community.
>>
>> All men have one.
>> You are not a man.
>> You don't have one.
>> Simple.
>
> Having a dick does not confer wisdom.
> Too many, like "Patrick", seem to think it can replace their brain!
Patrick
Oct 12, 2012, 6:45:20 PM10/12/12
to
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote ...
would stick his head up. Then, I'd shoot his brains out.
> , Uergil <Uer...@uer.net> wrote:
>>> "linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
>>> news:d4ydnc0JSKgX6-rN...@giganews.com...
>>> > MarkA wrote:
>>> >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:46:48 -0500, duke wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> No, you should has stuck with our original thought. Truth is that
>>> >>> no
>>> >>> man
>>> >>> can state definitively what happens to the unbaptized soul.
>>> >>>
>>> >> Talk about unintended humor! Men are the ONLY ones who can say what
>>> >> happens to the unbaptized soul, since they are the ones who came up
>>> >> with
>>> >> the idea in the first place.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > And also because there are no angels and animals don't talk.
>>> Prove it.
>
>>Actually some animals do 'talk', e.g., prairie dogs have quite different
>>calls to warn of hawks versus coyotes and wolves. But they do have quite
>>limited vocabularies.
>
> Did a prairie dog tell you that?
I used to whistle on the prairie and wait until one of them gophers
>>> "linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
>>> news:d4ydnc0JSKgX6-rN...@giganews.com...
>>> > MarkA wrote:
>>> >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:46:48 -0500, duke wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> No, you should has stuck with our original thought. Truth is that
>>> >>> no
>>> >>> man
>>> >>> can state definitively what happens to the unbaptized soul.
>>> >>>
>>> >> Talk about unintended humor! Men are the ONLY ones who can say what
>>> >> happens to the unbaptized soul, since they are the ones who came up
>>> >> with
>>> >> the idea in the first place.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > And also because there are no angels and animals don't talk.
>>> Prove it.
>
>>Actually some animals do 'talk', e.g., prairie dogs have quite different
>>calls to warn of hawks versus coyotes and wolves. But they do have quite
>>limited vocabularies.
>
> Did a prairie dog tell you that?
would stick his head up. Then, I'd shoot his brains out.
Patrick
Oct 12, 2012, 6:49:07 PM10/12/12
to
"MarkA" <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote
That will never be accepted as logical or moral behavior.
Birth control is another story.
> For a while, the RCC solved the problem by postulating the existence of
> "Limbo", where everyone goes if they don't qualify for either Heaven or
> Hell. Recently, the Pope decided that Limbo wasn't such a good idea after
> all, so they stopped promoting it.
>
> So, now, if you ask a "good Catholic" what happens to the soul of an
> unbaptized baby that dies, they say, "Idunno", and leave it at that.
>
> I'm waiting for the Pope to realize that, since the Bible doesn't say
> anything against abortion or birth control, either, he should maybe apply
> the same "Idunno" standard there, too?
>
> I'm not holding my breath.
Good plan. Abortion is the deliberate taking of a life.
> "Limbo", where everyone goes if they don't qualify for either Heaven or
> Hell. Recently, the Pope decided that Limbo wasn't such a good idea after
> all, so they stopped promoting it.
>
> So, now, if you ask a "good Catholic" what happens to the soul of an
> unbaptized baby that dies, they say, "Idunno", and leave it at that.
>
> I'm waiting for the Pope to realize that, since the Bible doesn't say
> anything against abortion or birth control, either, he should maybe apply
> the same "Idunno" standard there, too?
>
> I'm not holding my breath.
That will never be accepted as logical or moral behavior.
Birth control is another story.
Jeanne Douglas
Oct 12, 2012, 8:01:29 PM10/12/12
to
In article <4peg785bpdtodgnsm...@4ax.com>,
Not according to your bible which states that only believers have
eternal life.
--
JD
"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
eternal life.
--
JD
"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
Uergil
Oct 13, 2012, 1:40:18 AM10/13/12
to
In article <W11es.4526$9_1....@fe07.iad>, "Patrick" <PBARK...@r.com>
wrote:
It it whether it is your practice to think with it that is in question.
wrote:
duke
Oct 13, 2012, 7:29:11 AM10/13/12
to
duke
Oct 13, 2012, 7:56:51 AM10/13/12
to
duke
Oct 13, 2012, 7:57:36 AM10/13/12
to
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 17:01:29 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
Now you're starting to get it. It's God's decision.
duke
Oct 13, 2012, 8:05:22 AM10/13/12
to
> Christians have widely interpreted that to
>mean that only by accepting Jesus as your Saviour can you get into Heaven.
belief mandates following, but following does not mandate belief. God called us
to follow, not to "believe". Many people in the world live a life equal to
following Jesus, even though they realize it not.
>Many Christians, Catholics in particular, also believe that the soul
>enters the body at the moment of conception (which is not actually a
>moment, BTW, but that's a discussion for another day).
>This creates a conflict, when you consider that for every person alive
>today, there are at least 3 or 4 who died within a few days of conception,
>because their blastocyst did not implant in the wall of their mother's
>uterus. Clearly, they can't go to Heaven. Equally clearly, they don't
>deserve to go to Hell, either. And, there's a LOT of them.
not a fact, that our loving God does not eternally punish the unbaptized infant
for no fault of his own. But no man can state one way or the other.
>For a while, the RCC solved the problem by postulating the existence of
>"Limbo", where everyone goes if they don't qualify for either Heaven or
>Hell. Recently, the Pope decided that Limbo wasn't such a good idea after
>all, so they stopped promoting it.
>So, now, if you ask a "good Catholic" what happens to the soul of an
>unbaptized baby that dies, they say, "Idunno", and leave it at that.
>I'm waiting for the Pope to realize that, since the Bible doesn't say
>anything against abortion or birth control, either, he should maybe apply
>the same "Idunno" standard there, too?
>I'm not holding my breath.
other, but we can only hope that our loving God has plans for those infants that
died unbaptized to eventually be raised to the heavenly kingdom.
Patrick
Oct 13, 2012, 9:02:45 AM10/13/12
to
"Uergil" <Uer...@uer.net> wrote com...
>, "Patrick" <PBARK...@r.com> > wrote:
>
>> > Having a dick does not confer wisdom.
>> > Too many, like "Patrick", seem to think it can replace their brain!
>>
>> Not my claim, honey.
>
> It it whether it is your practice to think with it that is in question.
Stop being pissed that God never gave you one.
>
>> > Having a dick does not confer wisdom.
>> > Too many, like "Patrick", seem to think it can replace their brain!
>>
>> Not my claim, honey.
>
> It it whether it is your practice to think with it that is in question.
Don Martin
Oct 13, 2012, 9:05:17 AM10/13/12
to
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 06:45:39 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
wrote:
>Patrick wrote:
>> "linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
>> news:d4ydnc0JSKgX6-rN...@giganews.com...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_%28parrot%29
Brighter than believers in talking snakes.
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
wrote:
>Patrick wrote:
>> "linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
>> news:d4ydnc0JSKgX6-rN...@giganews.com...
>>> MarkA wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:46:48 -0500, duke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you should has stuck with our original thought. Truth is that no
>>>>> man
>>>>> can state definitively what happens to the unbaptized soul.
>>>>>
>>>> Talk about unintended humor! Men are the ONLY ones who can say what
>>>> happens to the unbaptized soul, since they are the ones who came up with
>>>> the idea in the first place.
>>>>
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:46:48 -0500, duke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you should has stuck with our original thought. Truth is that no
>>>>> man
>>>>> can state definitively what happens to the unbaptized soul.
>>>>>
>>>> Talk about unintended humor! Men are the ONLY ones who can say what
>>>> happens to the unbaptized soul, since they are the ones who came up with
>>>> the idea in the first place.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And also because there are no angels and animals don't talk.
>>
>> Prove it.
>
>>
>> Prove it.
>
>Okay, except for parrots, but they just copy the sounds they hear. Sort
>of like believers in talking snakes.
Read up on Alex.
>of like believers in talking snakes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_%28parrot%29
Brighter than believers in talking snakes.
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
Don Martin
Oct 13, 2012, 9:05:17 AM10/13/12
to
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 09:44:22 -0700, Mike Painter
<mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 08:22:07 -0400, "Patrick" <PBARK...@r.com>
>>news:BoWdna6RBNQ_HurN...@giganews.com...
>>>> news:doednSU7YJc9PuvN...@giganews.com...
>>>>> MarkA wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know I've explained this to you before, Patrick: pregnancy carries
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> risk of sudden death from pulmonary embolism, or the development of
>>>>>> chronic disease, such as diabetes. That simple fact alone is
>>>>>> justification for terminating any pregnancy you don't absolutely want.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, remember, in Catholic theology, this life doesn't count, it's the
>>>>> next life that's important, so it is absolutely imperative that a woman
>>>>> carries her baby full term and gets it baptized. After that, one or
>>>>> both
>>>>> can die, no skin off the Pope's dick.
When Ratprick tried on a condom, he suffocated.
<mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 08:22:07 -0400, "Patrick" <PBARK...@r.com>
>>news:BoWdna6RBNQ_HurN...@giganews.com...
>>>> news:doednSU7YJc9PuvN...@giganews.com...
>>>>> MarkA wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know I've explained this to you before, Patrick: pregnancy carries
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> risk of sudden death from pulmonary embolism, or the development of
>>>>>> chronic disease, such as diabetes. That simple fact alone is
>>>>>> justification for terminating any pregnancy you don't absolutely want.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, remember, in Catholic theology, this life doesn't count, it's the
>>>>> next life that's important, so it is absolutely imperative that a woman
>>>>> carries her baby full term and gets it baptized. After that, one or
>>>>> both
>>>>> can die, no skin off the Pope's dick.
>>>>
>>>> Hmmmm - you really are excited about dicks, aren't you?
>>>
>>> You must be disappointed.
>>
>>I've got one, honey.
>>
>When Patrick tried Viagra he grew six inches taller.
>>>> Hmmmm - you really are excited about dicks, aren't you?
>>>
>>> You must be disappointed.
>>
>>I've got one, honey.
>>
When Ratprick tried on a condom, he suffocated.
duke
Oct 13, 2012, 2:08:44 PM10/13/12
to
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 17:23:37 -0400, Brian E. Clark
duke
Oct 13, 2012, 2:09:13 PM10/13/12
to
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 18:07:49 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 17:23:37 -0400, Brian E. Clark wrote:
>
>> In article <gsWdnT9viPAg5uXN...@giganews.com>,
>> linu...@cleanposts.com says...
>>
>>> > Actually some animals do 'talk', e.g., prairie dogs have quite
>>> > different calls to warn of hawks versus coyotes and wolves. But they
>>> > do have quite limited vocabularies.
>>>
>>> They sure as shit don't cover the sacraments.
>>
>> That's a point in their favor.
>
>They may not have sacraments, but they have plenty of excrement, which is
>infinitely more useful.
What do you use it for?
>On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 17:23:37 -0400, Brian E. Clark wrote:
>
>> In article <gsWdnT9viPAg5uXN...@giganews.com>,
>> linu...@cleanposts.com says...
>>
>>> > Actually some animals do 'talk', e.g., prairie dogs have quite
>>> > different calls to warn of hawks versus coyotes and wolves. But they
>>> > do have quite limited vocabularies.
>>>
>>> They sure as shit don't cover the sacraments.
>>
>> That's a point in their favor.
>
>They may not have sacraments, but they have plenty of excrement, which is
>infinitely more useful.
linuxgal
Oct 13, 2012, 2:39:46 PM10/13/12
to
duke wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 17:23:37 -0400, Brian E. Clark
> <brian...@newsgroup.reply.only> wrote:
>
>> In article <gsWdnT9viPAg5uXN...@giganews.com>,
>> linu...@cleanposts.com says...
>>
>>>> Actually some animals do 'talk', e.g., prairie dogs have quite different
>>>> calls to warn of hawks versus coyotes and wolves. But they do have quite
>>>> limited vocabularies.
>>>
>>> They sure as shit don't cover the sacraments.
>>
>> That's a point in their favor.
>
> Satan likes that one.
I suppose you know that from being in his personal entourage.
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 17:23:37 -0400, Brian E. Clark
> <brian...@newsgroup.reply.only> wrote:
>
>> In article <gsWdnT9viPAg5uXN...@giganews.com>,
>> linu...@cleanposts.com says...
>>
>>>> Actually some animals do 'talk', e.g., prairie dogs have quite different
>>>> calls to warn of hawks versus coyotes and wolves. But they do have quite
>>>> limited vocabularies.
>>>
>>> They sure as shit don't cover the sacraments.
>>
>> That's a point in their favor.
>
> Satan likes that one.
MarkA
Oct 13, 2012, 2:45:36 PM10/13/12
to
this one was the one where you said that "deliberate taking of a life will
never be accepted as logical or moral behavior." Clearly, you didn't mean
just *any* life. You must have meant "human life, under some
circumstances". After all, even in the Bible, God says, "Thou shalt not
kill", and Moses immediately orders the execution of 3,000 people for
worshiping the golden calf made by Aaron. So, even killing humans is OK
under some circumstances.
You and I just have different circumstances that we recognize as
appropriate for killing some humans.
--
MarkA
If you can read this, you can stop reading now.
Uergil
Oct 13, 2012, 3:16:16 PM10/13/12
to
In article <UDdes.77453$oJ3....@fed07.iad>,
I have one, so that if, as you claim, your god did not give it to me,
you have just given me a TOTALLY sufficient reason to be an atheist.
The Best Way To Lower Abortion Rates Is To Give All Women Free And
Effective Birth Control
http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/04/14224132-free-birth-control-cu
ts-abortion-rate-dramatically-study-finds?lite
you have just given me a TOTALLY sufficient reason to be an atheist.
The Best Way To Lower Abortion Rates Is To Give All Women Free And
Effective Birth Control
http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/04/14224132-free-birth-control-cu
ts-abortion-rate-dramatically-study-finds?lite
Patrick
Oct 13, 2012, 3:43:10 PM10/13/12
to
"MarkA" <som...@somewhere.invalid> wrote ..
Human life and animal life are not even close to the same thing.
Have you ever seen a hereford calf step in a gopher hole and break
its leg? It is very sad. The calf's mother will even give up on the
calf and move on. I just happen o value a calf's life above a gopher's
life.
And I consider a human life to be infinitely more important than
a calf's life. ANy more questions?
> After all, even in the Bible, God says, "Thou shalt not
> kill", and Moses immediately orders the execution of 3,000 people for
> worshiping the golden calf made by Aaron. So, even killing humans is OK
> under some circumstances.
OK.
I don't hold a lot of reality in some of the OT stories.
> You and I just have different circumstances that we recognize as
> appropriate for killing some humans.
Yes.
I don't think I could kill another human unless it were under
extraordinary circumstances. But, I won't shed any tears if
you go around killing rapists in the streets.
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 18:45:20 -0400, Patrick wrote:
>>>>> > MarkA wrote:
>>>>> >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:46:48 -0500, duke wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>> No, you should has stuck with our original thought. Truth is that
>>>>> >>> no
>>>>> >>> man
>>>>> >>> can state definitively what happens to the unbaptized soul.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >> Talk about unintended humor! Men are the ONLY ones who can say
>>>>> >> what happens to the unbaptized soul, since they are the ones who
>>>>> >> came up with
>>>>> >> the idea in the first place.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> > And also because there are no angels and animals don't talk.
>>>>> Prove it.
>>>
>>>>Actually some animals do 'talk', e.g., prairie dogs have quite different
>>>>calls to warn of hawks versus coyotes and wolves. But they do have quite
>>>>limited vocabularies.
>>>
>>> Did a prairie dog tell you that?
>>
>> I used to whistle on the prairie and wait until one of them gophers would
>> stick his head up. Then, I'd shoot his brains out.
>
> Now this is interesting. The very last post of yours that I read before
> this one was the one where you said that "deliberate taking of a life will
> never be accepted as logical or moral behavior." Clearly, you didn't mean
> just *any* life. You must have meant "human life, under some
> circumstances".
Exactly.
>>>>> > MarkA wrote:
>>>>> >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:46:48 -0500, duke wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>> No, you should has stuck with our original thought. Truth is that
>>>>> >>> no
>>>>> >>> man
>>>>> >>> can state definitively what happens to the unbaptized soul.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >> Talk about unintended humor! Men are the ONLY ones who can say
>>>>> >> what happens to the unbaptized soul, since they are the ones who
>>>>> >> came up with
>>>>> >> the idea in the first place.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> > And also because there are no angels and animals don't talk.
>>>>> Prove it.
>>>
>>>>Actually some animals do 'talk', e.g., prairie dogs have quite different
>>>>calls to warn of hawks versus coyotes and wolves. But they do have quite
>>>>limited vocabularies.
>>>
>>> Did a prairie dog tell you that?
>>
>> I used to whistle on the prairie and wait until one of them gophers would
>> stick his head up. Then, I'd shoot his brains out.
>
> Now this is interesting. The very last post of yours that I read before
> this one was the one where you said that "deliberate taking of a life will
> never be accepted as logical or moral behavior." Clearly, you didn't mean
> just *any* life. You must have meant "human life, under some
> circumstances".
Human life and animal life are not even close to the same thing.
Have you ever seen a hereford calf step in a gopher hole and break
its leg? It is very sad. The calf's mother will even give up on the
calf and move on. I just happen o value a calf's life above a gopher's
life.
And I consider a human life to be infinitely more important than
a calf's life. ANy more questions?
> After all, even in the Bible, God says, "Thou shalt not
> kill", and Moses immediately orders the execution of 3,000 people for
> worshiping the golden calf made by Aaron. So, even killing humans is OK
> under some circumstances.
I don't hold a lot of reality in some of the OT stories.
> You and I just have different circumstances that we recognize as
> appropriate for killing some humans.
I don't think I could kill another human unless it were under
extraordinary circumstances. But, I won't shed any tears if
you go around killing rapists in the streets.
Jeanne Douglas
Oct 13, 2012, 6:30:17 PM10/13/12
to
In article <doli78559spo8096r...@4ax.com>,
Wow. Talk about twisted logic.
What, exactly, am I starting to get? The fact that you always bring up
the empty threat when you're losing an argument?
What, exactly, am I starting to get? The fact that you always bring up
the empty threat when you're losing an argument?
Patrick
Oct 13, 2012, 7:53:54 PM10/13/12
to
"Uergil" <Uer...@uer.net> wrote in message
news:Uergil-7F1856....@bignews.usenetmonster.com...
> In article <UDdes.77453$oJ3....@fed07.iad>,
> "Patrick" <PBARK...@r.com> wrote:
>
>> "Uergil" <Uer...@uer.net> wrote com...
>> >, "Patrick" <PBARK...@r.com> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> > Having a dick does not confer wisdom.
>> >> > Too many, like "Patrick", seem to think it can replace their brain!
>> >>
>> >> Not my claim, honey.
>> >
>> > It it whether it is your practice to think with it that is in question.
>>
>> Stop being pissed that God never gave you one.
>
> I have one, so that if, as you claim, your god did not give it to me,
> you have just given me a TOTALLY sufficient reason to be an atheist.
I thought you were a chick?
> "Patrick" <PBARK...@r.com> wrote:
>
>> "Uergil" <Uer...@uer.net> wrote com...
>> >, "Patrick" <PBARK...@r.com> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> > Having a dick does not confer wisdom.
>> >> > Too many, like "Patrick", seem to think it can replace their brain!
>> >>
>> >> Not my claim, honey.
>> >
>> > It it whether it is your practice to think with it that is in question.
>>
>> Stop being pissed that God never gave you one.
>
> I have one, so that if, as you claim, your god did not give it to me,
> you have just given me a TOTALLY sufficient reason to be an atheist.
Or was that someone else who had "gal" in their name.
All you loozers confuse me with fake monikers.
Uergil
Oct 13, 2012, 9:21:14 PM10/13/12
to
In article <gvjes.44799$L57....@fed13.iad>,
of a number of different forms of life on Earth..
Patrick is well over 90% identical with the great apes, but acts more
like a monkey.
The Best Way To Lower Abortion Rates Is To Give All Women Free And
Effective Birth Control
http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/04/14224132-free-birth-control-cu
ts-abortion-rate-dramatically-study-finds?lite
***************************************
Obama is on the side of people.
Romney is on the side of wealth.
Which side are you on?
***************************************
"Patrick" <PBARK...@r.com> wrote:
> Human life and animal life are not even close to the same thing.
Human life is just one version of animal life, which is itself only one
> Human life and animal life are not even close to the same thing.
of a number of different forms of life on Earth..
Patrick is well over 90% identical with the great apes, but acts more
like a monkey.
The Best Way To Lower Abortion Rates Is To Give All Women Free And
Effective Birth Control
http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/04/14224132-free-birth-control-cu
ts-abortion-rate-dramatically-study-finds?lite
Obama is on the side of people.
Romney is on the side of wealth.
Which side are you on?
***************************************
Budikka666
Oct 13, 2012, 10:09:21 PM10/13/12
to
With free birth control, abortion rate drops, but you never see lying
scum like J Young promoting that, do you?
http://www.futurity.org/health-medicine/with-free-birth-control-abortion-rate-drops/
That's why he's a piece of theist trash.
Budikka
scum like J Young promoting that, do you?
http://www.futurity.org/health-medicine/with-free-birth-control-abortion-rate-drops/
That's why he's a piece of theist trash.
Budikka
james g. keegan jr.
Oct 14, 2012, 1:50:10 AM10/14/12
to
In article
<50861ee5-7263-45ce...@n2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
weight.
<50861ee5-7263-45ce...@n2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Oct 9, 2:44�am, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Summary: �No child is ever involved in any abortion. �End of story. �So,
> > what else is new?
>
> The fact that your summary is a lie is not new.
that allegation from a well known plagiarist like you doesn't carry much
> On Oct 9, 2:44�am, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Summary: �No child is ever involved in any abortion. �End of story. �So,
> > what else is new?
>
> The fact that your summary is a lie is not new.
weight.
Father Haskell
Oct 14, 2012, 3:42:28 AM10/14/12
to
On Oct 13, 3:43 pm, "Patrick" <PBARKER...@r.com> wrote:
>
> Human life and animal life are not even close to the same thing.
> Have you ever seen a hereford calf step in a gopher hole and break
> its leg? It is very sad. The calf's mother will even give up on the
> calf and move on. I just happen o value a calf's life above a gopher's
> life.
> And I consider a human life to be infinitely more important than
> a calf's life. ANy more questions?
Kabang the shepherd is more noble than you'll ever be.
>
> Human life and animal life are not even close to the same thing.
> Have you ever seen a hereford calf step in a gopher hole and break
> its leg? It is very sad. The calf's mother will even give up on the
> calf and move on. I just happen o value a calf's life above a gopher's
> life.
> And I consider a human life to be infinitely more important than
> a calf's life. ANy more questions?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/12/kabang-hero-dog_n_1962929.html
duke
Oct 14, 2012, 7:30:34 AM10/14/12
to
On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 11:39:46 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>duke wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 17:23:37 -0400, Brian E. Clark
>> <brian...@newsgroup.reply.only> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <gsWdnT9viPAg5uXN...@giganews.com>,
>>> linu...@cleanposts.com says...
>>>
>>>>> Actually some animals do 'talk', e.g., prairie dogs have quite different
>>>>> calls to warn of hawks versus coyotes and wolves. But they do have quite
>>>>> limited vocabularies.
>>>> They sure as shit don't cover the sacraments.
>>> That's a point in their favor.
>> Satan likes that one.
>I suppose you know that from being in his personal entourage.
When the shoe fits, you don't have to walk with the foot.
>duke wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 17:23:37 -0400, Brian E. Clark
>> <brian...@newsgroup.reply.only> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <gsWdnT9viPAg5uXN...@giganews.com>,
>>> linu...@cleanposts.com says...
>>>
>>>>> Actually some animals do 'talk', e.g., prairie dogs have quite different
>>>>> calls to warn of hawks versus coyotes and wolves. But they do have quite
>>>>> limited vocabularies.
>>>> They sure as shit don't cover the sacraments.
>>> That's a point in their favor.
>> Satan likes that one.
>I suppose you know that from being in his personal entourage.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages