OT - Just for Janet

[Bruce S]

Just a note for Janet to let her know that the District Court Judge in
Texas does not agree with her that students have no rights. According
to him, the First Amendment still applies to students.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/9/texas-cheerleaders-win-legal-right-wave-banners-bi/


--
Bruce

"In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can
win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can
profit."

[bill horne]

Bruce S wrote:
> Just a note for Janet to let her know that the District Court Judge in
> Texas does not agree with her that students have no rights. According
> to him, the First Amendment still applies to students.
>
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/9/texas-cheerleaders-win-legal-right-wave-banners-bi/

Looks to me like the First Amendment part is still unclear.
------------------------------------------------
State District Judge Steven Thomas said the banners are protected by
the Constitution, Fox News reported.

But he didn�t rule whether the banners are protected under the First
Amendment�s free speech provisions, Fox News reported.

He said no law �prohibits cheerleaders from using religious-themed
banners at school sporting events,� in his ruling. But the Freedom
From Religion Foundation had argued the banners represented a
violation of the First Amendment�s prohibition against government
establishing a religion, and the judge�s ruling did not address that
argument specifically.
-------------------------------------------------

--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.

[Bruce S]

Well, Freedom Of Religion is still part of the First Amendment.

[Janet Wilder]

On 5/9/2013 12:30 PM, Bruce S wrote:
> Just a note for Janet to let her know that the District Court Judge in
> Texas does not agree with her that students have no rights. According
> to him, the First Amendment still applies to students.
>
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/9/texas-cheerleaders-win-legal-right-wave-banners-bi/
>
>
>

Nice to know, however this is nothing close to the situation where I was
told by the ACLU that minors did not have the same civil rights as adults.

--
Janet Wilder
Way-the-heck-south Texas
Spelling doesn't count. Cooking does.

[richard]

On Thu, 09 May 2013 10:30:05 -0700, Bruce S wrote:

> Just a note for Janet to let her know that the District Court Judge in
> Texas does not agree with her that students have no rights. According
> to him, the First Amendment still applies to students.
>
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/9/texas-cheerleaders-win-legal-right-wave-banners-bi/

can someone explain to me where it says in the first amendment that the US
government can establish a religion?
the freedom foundation muat have a version nobody else knows about.

[RMcBane]

I think that you misread the article. The freedom foundation complained
about the banners.

"But the Freedom From Religion Foundation had argued the banners
represented a violation of the First Amendment�s prohibition against

government establishing a religion..."



--
Richard McBane

[Lone Haranguer]

Janet Wilder wrote:
> On 5/9/2013 12:30 PM, Bruce S wrote:
>> Just a note for Janet to let her know that the District Court
>> Judge in
>> Texas does not agree with her that students have no rights.
>> According
>> to him, the First Amendment still applies to students.
>>
>> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/9/texas-cheerleaders-win-legal-right-wave-banners-bi/
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Nice to know, however this is nothing close to the situation
> where I was told by the ACLU that minors did not have the same
> civil rights as adults.
>

That is NOT the way you phrased it. You stated that minors have
NO rights and said you got that information from the ACLU.

LZ

[Bruce S]

On 5/9/2013 3:00 PM, Janet Wilder wrote:
> On 5/9/2013 12:30 PM, Bruce S wrote:
>> Just a note for Janet to let her know that the District Court Judge in
>> Texas does not agree with her that students have no rights. According
>> to him, the First Amendment still applies to students.
>>
>> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/9/texas-cheerleaders-win-legal-right-wave-banners-bi/
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Nice to know, however this is nothing close to the situation where I was
> told by the ACLU that minors did not have the same civil rights as adults.

But your contention here was that minors do not have rights. Just
pointing out that a Texas judge doesn't agree with you.

[Janet Wilder]

On 5/9/2013 6:35 PM, Bruce S wrote:
> On 5/9/2013 3:00 PM, Janet Wilder wrote:
>> On 5/9/2013 12:30 PM, Bruce S wrote:
>>> Just a note for Janet to let her know that the District Court Judge in
>>> Texas does not agree with her that students have no rights. According
>>> to him, the First Amendment still applies to students.
>>>
>>> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/9/texas-cheerleaders-win-legal-right-wave-banners-bi/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Nice to know, however this is nothing close to the situation where I was
>> told by the ACLU that minors did not have the same civil rights as
>> adults.
>
> But your contention here was that minors do not have rights. Just
> pointing out that a Texas judge doesn't agree with you.
>

Who brought the suit? A minor is not sui juris and can't file a law
suit on his or her own. An adult had to be appointed as guardian ad
litem to file the suit.

[Bruce S]

Irrelevant - when the Judge said the cheerleaders had the right to put
religious sayings on their banners, your position was dead. Rights are
rights - minors have rights. Might not be the same rights (or
administered in the same manner) but minors DO have rights. Your claim
was that they did not, and the judge granting them even one right makes
your position wrong.

[Vito00]

"Bruce S" <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote

| bill horne wrote:
| > Bruce S wrote:
| >> Just a note for Janet to let her know that the District Court Judge
in
| >> Texas does not agree with her that students have no rights.
According
| >> to him, the First Amendment still applies to students.
| >>
| >>
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/9/texas-cheerleaders-win-legal-right-wave-banners-bi/
| >>
| >
| > Looks to me like the First Amendment part is still unclear.
| > ------------------------------------------------
| > State District Judge Steven Thomas said the banners are protected by
the
| > Constitution, Fox News reported.
| >

| > But he didn�t rule whether the banners are protected under the First
| > Amendment�s free speech provisions, Fox News reported.
| >
| > He said no law �prohibits cheerleaders from using religious-themed
| > banners at school sporting events,� in his ruling. But the Freedom

From
| > Religion Foundation had argued the banners represented a violation of

| > the First Amendment�s prohibition against government establishing a
| > religion, and the judge�s ruling did not address that argument

| > specifically.
| > -------------------------------------------------
|
| Well, Freedom Of Religion is still part of the First Amendment.
|

Yes ... as is freedom from religion.

[Bruce S]

On 5/9/2013 7:41 PM, Vito00 wrote:
> "Bruce S" <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote
> | bill horne wrote:
> | > Bruce S wrote:
> | >> Just a note for Janet to let her know that the District Court Judge
> in
> | >> Texas does not agree with her that students have no rights.
> According
> | >> to him, the First Amendment still applies to students.
> | >>
> | >>
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/9/texas-cheerleaders-win-legal-right-wave-banners-bi/
> | >>
> | >
> | > Looks to me like the First Amendment part is still unclear.
> | > ------------------------------------------------
> | > State District Judge Steven Thomas said the banners are protected by
> the
> | > Constitution, Fox News reported.
> | >

> | > But he didn�t rule whether the banners are protected under the First
> | > Amendment�s free speech provisions, Fox News reported.
> | >
> | > He said no law �prohibits cheerleaders from using religious-themed
> | > banners at school sporting events,� in his ruling. But the Freedom

> From
> | > Religion Foundation had argued the banners represented a violation of

> | > the First Amendment�s prohibition against government establishing a
> | > religion, and the judge�s ruling did not address that argument

> | > specifically.
> | > -------------------------------------------------
> |
> | Well, Freedom Of Religion is still part of the First Amendment.
> |
> Yes ... as is freedom from religion.

Have you got a quote to support that claim? (From the Constitution, of
course.)

[Will Sill]

She and Hunter have made it abundantly clear that they don't accept the
standard definitions of words like "some". "all", "none", "every" etc.

Will

[Lone Haranguer]

Janet Wilder wrote:
> On 5/9/2013 6:35 PM, Bruce S wrote:
>> On 5/9/2013 3:00 PM, Janet Wilder wrote:
>>> On 5/9/2013 12:30 PM, Bruce S wrote:
>>>> Just a note for Janet to let her know that the District
>>>> Court Judge in
>>>> Texas does not agree with her that students have no rights.
>>>> According
>>>> to him, the First Amendment still applies to students.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/9/texas-cheerleaders-win-legal-right-wave-banners-bi/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Nice to know, however this is nothing close to the situation
>>> where I was
>>> told by the ACLU that minors did not have the same civil
>>> rights as
>>> adults.
>>
>> But your contention here was that minors do not have rights. Just
>> pointing out that a Texas judge doesn't agree with you.
>>
>
> Who brought the suit? A minor is not sui juris and can't file
> a law suit on his or her own. An adult had to be appointed as
> guardian ad litem to file the suit.
>

Did you weigh that herring?
LZ

[Major Oz]

Gotta be careful with the ACLU........

For years, I was the only person I knew that was both a NRA live member (since 1959) AND a member of the ACLU.

Then, just about 2002 or so, they "clarified" their position on the 2nd amendment.

It is now their official position that, in their opinion, the amendments contained in the Bill Of Rights apply to individuals.....as in guaranteeing an individual right..... EXCEPT for the second amendment, which is a COLLECTIVE right.

I no longer belong.

[Vito00]

"Bruce S" <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote

| > | Well, Freedom Of Religion is still part of the First Amendment.
| > |
| > Yes ... as is freedom from religion.
|
| Have you got a quote to support that claim? (From the Constitution, of
| course.)
|

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion .... "
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress
...."

[Vito00]

"Major Oz" <ozm...@gmail.com> wrote

SInce ACLU's position is diameterically opposed to the SCotUS position the
ACLU must be an unamerican org.

[Lone Haranguer]

Psst! Vito: You'll be happy to learn that Dr. Gosnell was
convicted of 3 counts of first degree murder....all 3 counts for
killing those non-persons you consider fair game for termination.

Also one count of involuntary manslaughter for the woman who died
of a drug overdose administered by his untrained staff.

LZ

[Owen McKenzie]

He was also found guilty of 21 counts of abortion of the unborn, 24
weeks or older.

At 23 weeks, 6 days they're tissue. At 24 weeks they're "the unborn".
How on earth do people rationalize this!

I don't want to start (another) abortion thread, but people need to take
a hard look at this whole situation.
--

Owen McKenzie
Posting from Ft. Walton Beach, FL

"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."
-- William G. McAdoo

[Bruce S]

> ....."

Says absolutely NOTHING about freedom FROM religion. If you could read,
the only thing the constitution protects you from (in religious terms)
is the GOVERNMENT forcing a religion on you. Every other person in the
country has the absolute right to attempt to convert you to his/her
religious beliefs - just as you have the right to attempt to convert
them to yours.

[Hunter Hampton]

On 5/13/2013 4:07 PM, Owen McKenzie wrote:
>
> I don't want to start (another) abortion thread, but people need to take
> a hard look at this whole situation.

The thing is, you can make abortions illegal again..... but you won't
stop them any more than making drugs illegal stops drugs.

Making abortion legal means women can have them safely.... making them
illegal means back to the butchers.....

Hunter

[nothermark]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:07:05 -0400, Owen McKenzie
<owenwmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 5/13/2013 6:45 PM, Lone Haranguer wrote:
>> Vito00 wrote:
>>> "Bruce S" <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> | > | Well, Freedom Of Religion is still part of the First Amendment.
>>> | > |
>>> | > Yes ... as is freedom from religion.
>>> |
>>> | Have you got a quote to support that claim? (From the Constitution, of
>>> | course.)
>>> |
>>> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...."
>>> "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress
>>> ...."
>>>
>>>
>> Psst! Vito: You'll be happy to learn that Dr. Gosnell was convicted of
>> 3 counts of first degree murder....all 3 counts for killing those
>> non-persons you consider fair game for termination.
>>
>> Also one count of involuntary manslaughter for the woman who died of a
>> drug overdose administered by his untrained staff.
>>
>> LZ
>
>He was also found guilty of 21 counts of abortion of the unborn, 24
>weeks or older.
>
>At 23 weeks, 6 days they're tissue. At 24 weeks they're "the unborn".
>How on earth do people rationalize this!
>
>I don't want to start (another) abortion thread, but people need to take
>a hard look at this whole situation.

I have. For the most part I think he was Railroaded because he had
reasched a point at 72 where he was probably gong to stop providing
services so he made a good headline.

[K Miller]

Owen McKenzie wrote:
>
> He was also found guilty of 21 counts of abortion of the unborn, 24
> weeks or older.
>
> At 23 weeks, 6 days they're tissue. At 24 weeks they're "the unborn".
> How on earth do people rationalize this!

The same way that they "rationalize" that .08 is the legal limit (in this
state) for your blood alcohol level. There is a need to draw the line
somewhere between what the fundiethumpers "rationalize" and what the
Gosnells "rationalize".

>
> I don't want to start (another) abortion thread, but people need to
> take a hard look at this whole situation.

How do you know that "people" haven't?

[Lone Haranguer]

Dr. Gosnell ran an abortion clinic that came to be called "A
House of Horrors". He used the abortion laws as a cover to do
illegal abortions.

The agency charged with inspecting abortion clinics hadn't
checked his in the past 17 years.....because of political
pressure from folks like you. The agency had received complaints
but never acted on them. It took a raid by the FBI to bring his
actions into the public view.

He wasn't convicted for doing legal abortions so you can put that
red herring back in the sack.

LZ
>
> Hunter
>

[George Anthony]

"Hunter Hampton" <airstrea...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:51917f7c$0$15387$c3e8da3$9f40...@news.astraweb.com...

Like Gosnell?

[George Anthony]

"nothermark" <nothe...@not.here> wrote in message
news:ttv2p817mfvi2c2am...@4ax.com...

You never cease to amaze me with your inexplicable comments. You really
believe he was railroaded? By whom? And what headline? The MSM certainly
didn't provide any headlines, in fact, they all but ignored it since it
didn't fit their pro-abortion template. The verdict was unanimous (it had
to be for a conviction) and I'm sure at least some of the panel were
pro-abortion. The man murdered living, breathing human beings for God's
sake! Is there any ultra-liberal evil you won't support or apologize for?

[Bruce S]

That reminds me - I saw an article yesterday in which Ruth Ginsburg said
that Roe Vs Wade was decided incorrectly. She said it was too broad a
decision and should have been limited to only the Texas case it was
based on; and that it should have been based on women's' rights not
privacy. I never would have thought that I would have agreed with her
on anything, but it sounds like she got this one mostly right.

This isn't the same story I read yesterday, but it says essentially the
same thing:

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/348121/justice-ginsburg-roe-v-wade

[Bruce S]

On 5/13/2013 5:09 PM, K Miller wrote:
> Owen McKenzie wrote:
>>
>> He was also found guilty of 21 counts of abortion of the unborn, 24
>> weeks or older.
>>
>> At 23 weeks, 6 days they're tissue. At 24 weeks they're "the unborn".
>> How on earth do people rationalize this!
>
> The same way that they "rationalize" that .08 is the legal limit (in this
> state) for your blood alcohol level. There is a need to draw the line
> somewhere between what the fundiethumpers "rationalize" and what the
> Gosnells "rationalize".

Well, you got that half right. .08 is the "bright line" limit -
anything over that amount is "impaired" by definition; but, if the cop
does a field sobriety test and the driver fails, he/she can be charged
with DUI with any measurable amount of alcohol in his system.

[nothermark]

It has nothing to do with evil. We have an over populated planet.
translate that to anything that reduces population is not
automatically bad.

Ending problem pregnancies whether the problem is a health issue or a
financial issue for the mother is fine by me. That seems to be the
bulk of what he was accused and convicted of. The only case that I do
not know enough to have an opinion about is the woman who apparently
died from the anesthetic.

I also have a problem with a 72 year old Doctor still running a clinic
when a younger person should have taken it over by then. Evidently
there was nobody to do that. I think that was the driving issue. It's
too bad they did not just use the Health Department to shut him down.
As far as that goes the situation must have been going on for long
enough that they Health Department should have shut him down years
ago. I would be after folks there. Evidently they did not care but
some Conservative whacko attorney found him.

[Major Oz]

On Monday, May 13, 2013 6:26:42 PM UTC-5, bruce wrote:

> ...the only thing the constitution protects you from (in religious terms)

> is the GOVERNMENT forcing a religion on you. Every other person in the
> country has the absolute right to attempt to convert you to his/her
> religious beliefs - just as you have the right to attempt to convert
> them to yours.

But the gummunt is NOT allowed to be a facilitator / enabler, as in providing a forum for prayer at a high school football game, or a courthouse lawn for xmas creche.

[Major Oz]

On Monday, May 13, 2013 7:21:57 PM UTC-5, Lone Haranguer wrote:

> He wasn't convicted for doing legal abortions so you can put that
> red herring back in the sack.

We will, if you will.

(refreshing to hear you say some abortions are legal)

[Major Oz]

On Monday, May 13, 2013 8:43:47 PM UTC-5, bruce wrote:

> That reminds me - I saw an article yesterday in which Ruth Ginsburg said
>
> that Roe Vs Wade was decided incorrectly. She said it was too broad a
>
> decision and should have been limited to only the Texas case it was
>
> based on; and that it should have been based on women's' rights not
>
> privacy.

Since the day of the decision.......jurists like Robert Bork, conservatives like George Will, liberals like Mark Shields, and academics from law schools all over the nation have said -- and I have agreed -- that Roe v. Wade made the right decision using the wrong reasoning.

But.....it's too late now.

oz, who thinks abortion should be safe, legal, affordable, and rare.

[Will Sill]

In what way(s) would the back street "butchers" be different than
Gosnell's "clinic" and the hundreds of similar establishments
masquerading as "women's health" facilities?

See http://kermitgosnellcrimes.wikispaces.com/Dirty+Abortion+Mills

"Making abortions legal" will NEVER make the sanitary or safe. By
definition, abortion is about killing.

You rail against "puppy mills" - why the hypocrisy?

Will

[Bob Hatch]

Only becasue of a faulty ruling by the SCOTUS in the Engel v. Vitale and
later in the O'Hair case. The First is specific as to the restriction,
and schools are not congress.

--
I do not carry a gun hoping that
I'll be able to shoot someone, anymore than
I carry a jack hoping I'll have a flat
tire.
Me.

[Hank]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 7:50:29 AM UTC-4, Will Sill wrote:

> In what way(s) would the back street "butchers" be different than
>
> Gosnell's "clinic" and the hundreds of similar establishments
>
> masquerading as "women's health" facilities?
>
>
>
> See http://kermitgosnellcrimes.wikispaces.com/Dirty+Abortion+Mills
>
>
>
> "Making abortions legal" will NEVER make the sanitary or safe. By
>
> definition, abortion is about killing.
>
>
>
> You rail against "puppy mills" - why the hypocrisy?
>
>
>
> Will

I thought you were old enough to remember when girls performed abortions on themselves. Girls who are pregnant and don't want to have a child will do anything to abort. Even if it means using a coat hanger themselves, or going to someones house to have it done by someone who doesn't really have the means or knowledge. When that happens, there is a possiblity of 2 lives being lost.

On a personal note... I think men should stay out of the debate and let the women fight it out.

Hank <~~~~ loves a good cat-fight :-)

[Owen McKenzie]

On 5/13/2013 8:09 PM, K Miller wrote:
> Owen McKenzie wrote:
>>
>> He was also found guilty of 21 counts of abortion of the unborn, 24
>> weeks or older.
>>
>> At 23 weeks, 6 days they're tissue. At 24 weeks they're "the unborn".
>> How on earth do people rationalize this!
>
> The same way that they "rationalize" that .08 is the legal limit (in this
> state) for your blood alcohol level. There is a need to draw the line
> somewhere between what the fundiethumpers "rationalize" and what the
> Gosnells "rationalize".

I agree that many lines are arbitrary, but they don't kill you if you
blood alcohol level is over the limit.

Viability of the unborn has changed significantly over the years, but
the law hasn't kept pace.

>
>>
>> I don't want to start (another) abortion thread, but people need to
>> take a hard look at this whole situation.
>
> How do you know that "people" haven't?
>
>

[Janet Wilder]

You strongly favor the death penalty. Is that not also the taking of a
human life?



--
Janet Wilder
Way-the-heck-south Texas
Spelling doesn't count. Cooking does.

[Janet Wilder]

On 5/14/2013 7:40 AM, Hank wrote:

> On a personal note... I think men should stay out of the debate and let the women fight it out.

This is the one most brilliant response on the subject.

[Hunter Hampton]

On 5/14/2013 4:50 AM, Will Sill wrote:
> In what way(s) would the back street "butchers" be different than
> Gosnell's "clinic" and the hundreds of similar establishments
> masquerading as "women's health" facilities?>

Thousands of women are alive because they chose to have a safe legal
abortion..... Gosnell is a butcher, and obviously doesn't represent the
majority of abortion doctors, and has been found guilty....

>
> See http://kermitgosnellcrimes.wikispaces.com/Dirty+Abortion+Mills
>
> "Making abortions legal" will NEVER make the sanitary or safe. By
> definition, abortion is about killing.>

Many are sanitary and safe.... I didn't realize you were an authority on
abortions too... is there anything on this planet you aren't an
authority on...

>
> You rail against "puppy mills" - why the hypocrisy?

Yes I do... and will continue to do so. Legal abortion means a quick end
to something that's not yet sentient vs an animal suffering for every
minute of its life for 15 years or so...

To me, death is preferable to hell on earth...

Hunter

[Lone Haranguer]

So how does the militaryget away with having a chapel on every
military base? The government furnishes the building and uses
taxpayer funds to pay the chaplains.

"Chaplains are spiritual counselors and leaders who serve in many
areas of the U.S. Army. Like other Army officers, chaplains have
a set pay scale for their base pay, and also receive other
financial benefits, such as money for housing. In addition, army
chaplains may be eligible for signing bonuses of up to $10,000,
as well as reimbursement for educational expenses. In general,
Army chaplains have significantly higher pay than chaplains
working in other fields, such as hospitals or schools
<http://www.ehow.com/about_4680450_pay-scale-army-chaplains.html#>.

Read more: Pay Scale for Army Chaplains | eHow
<http://www.ehow.com/about_4680450_pay-scale-army-chaplains.html#ixzz2THagsY8V>
http://www.ehow.com/about_4680450_pay-scale-army-chaplains.html#ixzz2THagsY8V

Also, military cemeteries oversees maintained by our government
have either crosses or the Star of David on every grave.

LZ


LZ

[Lone Haranguer]

Andsome are criminal....but we don't expect you to admit that.

LZ

[Bruce S]

On 5/13/2013 9:57 PM, Major Oz wrote:

That is still wrong - you really need to read some of the SCOTUS
decisions on the matter. As long as the government entity does not
initiate such things they can still permit them.

[Lone Haranguer]

But by legalizingit the result is that it is less rare and more
common.

LZ

[Bruce S]

The right decision would have been that it is a states rights issue,
then leave it up to each state on an individual basis to decide if it
should be legal there or not. There is no way to actually uphold the
Constitution's meaning as written and conclude differently.

[Lone Haranguer]

> As long as men are FORCED to pay child support if the baby is born, they should be entitled to have a voice in the termination of the pregnancy.

LZ

[Lone Haranguer]

Those getting the death penalty have killed another human being
so it's an even exchange.

You can't say the same for aborted babies.

LZ

[Lone Haranguer]

Janet Wilder wrote:
> On 5/14/2013 7:40 AM, Hank wrote:
>
>> On a personal note... I think men should stay out of the
>> debate and let the women fight it out.
>
> This is the one most brilliant response on the subject.

Except that the woman has the sole choice to terminate the
pregnancy while the father has no voice.

If the woman decidesNOT to have an abortion, guess who is
responsible to pay child support for 18 years?

But the father has no voice in either decision.

LZ

[nothermark]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 10:36:01 -0400, Owen McKenzie
<owenwmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 5/13/2013 8:09 PM, K Miller wrote:
>> Owen McKenzie wrote:
>>>
>>> He was also found guilty of 21 counts of abortion of the unborn, 24
>>> weeks or older.
>>>
>>> At 23 weeks, 6 days they're tissue. At 24 weeks they're "the unborn".
>>> How on earth do people rationalize this!
>>
>> The same way that they "rationalize" that .08 is the legal limit (in this
>> state) for your blood alcohol level. There is a need to draw the line
>> somewhere between what the fundiethumpers "rationalize" and what the
>> Gosnells "rationalize".
>
>I agree that many lines are arbitrary, but they don't kill you if you
>blood alcohol level is over the limit.
>
>Viability of the unborn has changed significantly over the years, but
>the law hasn't kept pace.
>>
>>>
>>> I don't want to start (another) abortion thread, but people need to
>>> take a hard look at this whole situation.
>>
>> How do you know that "people" haven't?
>>
>>

Actually , it has not changed. The success rate has improved but the
date has not moved back. As I recall the issue is insufficient lung
development but I could be wrong.

[nothermark]

Then stop arguing againsr contraception.

[Bruce S]

Did I miss something - when did LZ argue against contraception?

In fact, when did anyone here argue against contraception?

[Major Oz]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 11:02:02 AM UTC-5, bruce wrote:
> On 5/13/2013 10:08 PM, Major Oz wrote:
>
> > On Monday, May 13, 2013 8:43:47 PM UTC-5, bruce wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> That reminds me - I saw an article yesterday in which Ruth Ginsburg said
>
> >>
>
> >> that Roe Vs Wade was decided incorrectly. She said it was too broad a
>
> >>
>
> >> decision and should have been limited to only the Texas case it was
>
> >>
>
> >> based on; and that it should have been based on women's' rights not
>
> >>
>
> >> privacy.
>
> >
>
> > Since the day of the decision.......jurists like Robert Bork, conservatives like George Will, liberals like Mark Shields, and academics from law schools all over the nation have said -- and I have agreed -- that Roe v. Wade made the right decision using the wrong reasoning.
>
> >
>
> > But.....it's too late now.
>
> >
>
> > oz, who thinks abortion should be safe, legal, affordable, and rare.
>
>
>
> The right decision would have been that it is a states rights issue,
>
> then leave it up to each state on an individual basis to decide if it
>
> should be legal there or not. There is no way to actually uphold the
>
> Constitution's meaning as written and conclude differently.

...heh, heh, heh...

[Major Oz]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 10:55:21 AM UTC-5, Lone Haranguer, once again, illustrated his inability to use logic in his life........

...by showing he doesn't understand the distinction between:

1. The US Military offering a social/religious service (just like health care) to its members, and

2. Various levels of government using government resources to present in-your-face religious yak-yak to the general public, often in cases where the audience is "captive".

[Owen McKenzie]

On 5/14/2013 10:53 AM, Janet Wilder wrote:
>
> You strongly favor the death penalty. Is that not also the taking of a
> human life?
>
>

Do you think they're comparable?

[nothermark]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 10:02:49 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 5/14/2013 9:57 AM, nothermark wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 May 2013 09:00:19 -0700, Lone Haranguer
>> <linu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Major Oz wrote:
>>>> On Monday, May 13, 2013 8:43:47 PM UTC-5, bruce wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That reminds me - I saw an article yesterday in which Ruth Ginsburg said
>>>>>
>>>>> that Roe Vs Wade was decided incorrectly. She said it was too broad a
>>>>>
>>>>> decision and should have been limited to only the Texas case it was
>>>>>
>>>>> based on; and that it should have been based on women's' rights not
>>>>>
>>>>> privacy.
>>>> Since the day of the decision.......jurists like Robert Bork, conservatives like George Will, liberals like Mark Shields, and academics from law schools all over the nation have said -- and I have agreed -- that Roe v. Wade made the right decision using the wrong reasoning.
>>>>
>>>> But.....it's too late now.
>>>>
>>>> oz, who thinks abortion should be safe, legal, affordable, and rare.
>>> But by legalizingit the result is that it is less rare and more
>>> common.
>>>
>>> LZ
>>
>> Then stop arguing againsr contraception.
>
>Did I miss something - when did LZ argue against contraception?
>
>In fact, when did anyone here argue against contraception?

As I recall he does at intervals. Most of the arguements are the
backdoor approach of picking on the method. contraception is fine as
long as it does not interefere with the sperm or ova.

[K Miller]

Owen McKenzie wrote:
> On 5/14/2013 10:53 AM, Janet Wilder wrote:
>>
>> You strongly favor the death penalty. Is that not also the taking
>> of a human life?
>>
>>
> Do you think they're comparable?

So, do you always answer a question with a question?

[Will Sill]

I am not even slightly surprised that you make that totally irrelevant
comparison. But since you did, what grievous crime has any infant
committed?

And as long as you foolishly brought this up, do you actually believe
that the death penalty is always inappropriate? Adolf? Mao?

Will

Will

[Hunter Hampton]

On 5/14/2013 12:31 PM, Will Sill wrote:
> But since you did, what grievous crime has any infant committed?

Most abortions do not kill "infants" The infant butcher was found guilty...

Hunter

[Janet Wilder]

On 5/14/2013 1:44 PM, Owen McKenzie wrote:
> On 5/14/2013 10:53 AM, Janet Wilder wrote:
>>
>> You strongly favor the death penalty. Is that not also the taking of a
>> human life?
>>
>>
> Do you think they're comparable?
>
>

Do you think one life is more valuable than another?

[Janet Wilder]

The thread deals with the sanctity of life. I am not trying individual
cases.

It appears, from your response, that you only deem certain lives as
being sacred. To you *all* life is not sacred.

[Lone Haranguer]

Your "logic" is non-existent.
The military offers health care as a means to keep the troops in
a condition to do perform their military duties. It's also a
re-enlistment tool since family health care is also provided.
IOW the military is looking out for its own interests.

The military doesn't give a rat's ass if the troops ignore the
chaplain and chapel since it perceives religion as a strictly
personal matter.

LZ

[Lone Haranguer]

To paraphrase what Owen said. What difference is their between
killing at 23 weeks and 6 days and 1 day later?

One is a legal killing and the other isn't, based on the criteria
of the passage of 1 more day? The patient and the abortionist
both know to the exact day when the woman became pregnant?

Give me a break.

Abortionists can (and do) lie to the patient. Gosnell had told
one woman she was 21 weeks pregnant but an examination of the
aborted child revealed it to show a development of 29 weeks.

LZ

[Lone Haranguer]

Janet Wilder wrote:
> On 5/14/2013 1:44 PM, Owen McKenzie wrote:
>> On 5/14/2013 10:53 AM, Janet Wilder wrote:
>>>
>>> You strongly favor the death penalty. Is that not also the
>>> taking of a
>>> human life?
>>>
>>>
>> Do you think they're comparable?
>>
>>
>
> Do you think one life is more valuable than another?
>

If you had to kill one person to save the worldand they had to be
one of these two, which one would you choose if the choices were
Hitler or Ghandi?

LZ

[Frank Howell]

Bruce S wrote:

> On 5/13/2013 5:09 PM, K Miller wrote:
>> Owen McKenzie wrote:
>>>
>>> He was also found guilty of 21 counts of abortion of the unborn, 24
>>> weeks or older.
>>>
>>> At 23 weeks, 6 days they're tissue. At 24 weeks they're "the
>>> unborn". How on earth do people rationalize this!
>>
>> The same way that they "rationalize" that .08 is the legal limit (in
>> this state) for your blood alcohol level. There is a need to draw
>> the line somewhere between what the fundiethumpers "rationalize" and
>> what the Gosnells "rationalize".
>

> Well, you got that half right. .08 is the "bright line" limit -
> anything over that amount is "impaired" by definition; but, if the cop
> does a field sobriety test and the driver fails, he/she can be charged
> with DUI with any measurable amount of alcohol in his system.

Did you read today that the NTSB has recommended that the driver alcohol
breath limit be reduced to .05%?

--
Frank Howell

[Frank Howell]

I have to agree that the backdoor approach will prevent contraception.

--
Frank Howell

[Hunter Hampton]

On 5/14/2013 4:54 PM, Frank Howell wrote:
> I have to agree that the backdoor approach will prevent contraception.

When I lived in CT the Planned Parenthood building was on a very busy
street corner... there was a sign out front that read,

Planned Parenthood
use rear entrance

Hunter

[Lone Haranguer]

That should cause a big drop in the bar and restaurant business.

LZ

[Lone Haranguer]

Your recall is malfunctioning. I pointed out to Vito that his
idea of how birth control pills actually worked was wrong.

>> Most of the arguements are the
>> backdoor approach of picking on the method. contraception is fine as
>> long as it does not interefere with the sperm or ova.
> I have to agree that the backdoor approach will prevent contraception.
>

:)

LZ

[Bruce S]

An idea completely devoid of merit. I remember when Nevada changed from
.10 to .08 and we were given training in the new law. It was pointed
out that under the .10 limit the average DUI was .17 - I asked how
changing to .08 would help. They had no answer.

In that same class the instructor gave us the numbers for deaths related
to DUI and said that they wanted to cut that by at least a third. I
pointed out that half of those deaths were drunk pedestrians and asked
how changing the limit for drivers would change that - again, no answer.

[Owen McKenzie]

What makes you think I do?

[K Miller]

Owen McKenzie wrote:
> On 5/14/2013 3:25 PM, K Miller wrote:
>> Owen McKenzie wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2013 10:53 AM, Janet Wilder wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You strongly favor the death penalty. Is that not also the taking
>>>> of a human life?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Do you think they're comparable?
>>
>> So, do you always answer a question with a question?
>>
>>
> What makes you think I do?

Why do you ask?

[Owen McKenzie]

Why do you care?

[K Miller]

Owen McKenzie wrote:
> On 5/14/2013 10:52 PM, K Miller wrote:
>> Owen McKenzie wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2013 3:25 PM, K Miller wrote:
>>>> Owen McKenzie wrote:
>>>>> On 5/14/2013 10:53 AM, Janet Wilder wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You strongly favor the death penalty. Is that not also the
>>>>>> taking of a human life?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Do you think they're comparable?
>>>>
>>>> So, do you always answer a question with a question?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> What makes you think I do?
>>
>> Why do you ask?
>>
>>
> Why do you care?

Why don't you?

[Vito00]

"Lone Haranguer" <linu...@gmail.com> wrote
| Psst! Vito: You'll be happy to learn that Dr. Gosnell was
| convicted of 3 counts of first degree murder....all 3 counts for
| killing those non-persons you consider fair game for termination.
|
| Also one count of involuntary manslaughter for the woman who died
| of a drug overdose administered by his untrained staff.
|
Yes! Proving my contention that our existing laws work and that the RTL
nutters can find another cause .... and another way to keep Democrats in
control of the government.

[Lone Haranguer]

Vito00 wrote:
> "Lone Haranguer" <linu...@gmail.com> wrote
> | Psst! Vito: You'll be happy to learn that Dr. Gosnell was
> | convicted of 3 counts of first degree murder....all 3 counts for
> | killing those non-persons you consider fair game for termination.
> |
> | Also one count of involuntary manslaughter for the woman who died
> | of a drug overdose administered by his untrained staff.
> |
> Yes! Proving my contention that our existing laws work

How do you come to that conclusion? His butcher shop went
uninspected by those charged with enforcing the law for 17 years
despite numerous complaints.

You're calling THAT an example of a well enforced law?

> and that the RTL
> nutters can find another cause ....

I would say you are the nutter since you have no problem with
killing babies.

> and another way to keep Democrats in
> control of the government.
>

So you would have voted for Hitler rather than someone who had
some moral standards.

LZ

[Owen McKenzie]

On 5/15/2013 11:00 AM, K Miller wrote:
> Owen McKenzie wrote:
>> On 5/14/2013 10:52 PM, K Miller wrote:
>>> Owen McKenzie wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/2013 3:25 PM, K Miller wrote:
>>>>> Owen McKenzie wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/14/2013 10:53 AM, Janet Wilder wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You strongly favor the death penalty. Is that not also the
>>>>>>> taking of a human life?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you think they're comparable?
>>>>>
>>>>> So, do you always answer a question with a question?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> What makes you think I do?
>>>
>>> Why do you ask?
>>>
>>>
>> Why do you care?
>
> Why don't you?
>
>

What makes you think I don't?

--

Owen McKenzie
Posting from Canton, GA

[K Miller]

Owen McKenzie wrote:
> On 5/15/2013 11:00 AM, K Miller wrote:
>> Owen McKenzie wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2013 10:52 PM, K Miller wrote:
>>>> Owen McKenzie wrote:
>>>>> On 5/14/2013 3:25 PM, K Miller wrote:
>>>>>> Owen McKenzie wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/14/2013 10:53 AM, Janet Wilder wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You strongly favor the death penalty. Is that not also the
>>>>>>>> taking of a human life?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you think they're comparable?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, do you always answer a question with a question?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> What makes you think I do?
>>>>
>>>> Why do you ask?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Why do you care?
>>
>> Why don't you?
>>
>>
> What makes you think I don't?

So (hi oz), am I to think you do?

[Larry]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 09:54:47 -0500, Janet Wilder
<kellie...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 5/14/2013 7:40 AM, Hank wrote:
>
>> On a personal note... I think men should stay out of the debate and let the women fight it out.
>
>This is the one most brilliant response on the subject.

Hank and Janet, why should the father not have a say in the life or
death of his child?
--
Larry
Citrus County Florida

[Hunter Hampton]

On 5/15/2013 2:52 PM, Larry wrote:
> Hank and Janet, why should the father not have a say in the life or
> death of his child?

Because its not his child until its born....

Hunter

[Lone Haranguer]

What about the babies who were alive after the botched abortions
in Gosnell's clinic? Was the father consulted before
Gosnell snipped their spinal cords?

Wouldn't those fathers have the option of suing Gosnell for
wrongful death?

According to my knowledge of the law, they could. Gosnell was a
millionaire even though he claimed to only be helping the poor.

LZ

[Janet Wilder]

I believe Hank's comment was about abortion laws, not about who fathered
the child.

[Owen McKenzie]

On 5/15/2013 5:09 PM, K Miller wrote:
> Owen McKenzie wrote:
>> On 5/15/2013 11:00 AM, K Miller wrote:
>>> Owen McKenzie wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/2013 10:52 PM, K Miller wrote:
>>>>> Owen McKenzie wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/14/2013 3:25 PM, K Miller wrote:
>>>>>>> Owen McKenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2013 10:53 AM, Janet Wilder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You strongly favor the death penalty. Is that not also the
>>>>>>>>> taking of a human life?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you think they're comparable?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, do you always answer a question with a question?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> What makes you think I do?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you ask?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Why do you care?
>>>
>>> Why don't you?
>>>
>>>
>> What makes you think I don't?
>
> So (hi oz), am I to think you do?
>
>

So (hi, oz), why are you involving oz in this?

[Hank]

On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 5:52:08 PM UTC-4, Larry wrote:

> Hank and Janet, why should the father not have a say in the life or
>
> death of his child?
>
> --
>
> Larry
>
> Citrus County Florida

IMO, it would be a great thing IF the father could have a say in such matters. However, how does one know if he is the father until the child is born? Another thing is, how can the father stop an abortion? If a women wants an abortion, she will get one, even if she has to do it herself.

As a side question (because I dont' know the answer), can a man order a DNA test if the mother says he isn't the father?

Hank

[K Miller]

Owen McKenzie wrote:
> On 5/15/2013 5:09 PM, K Miller wrote:
>> Owen McKenzie wrote:
>>> On 5/15/2013 11:00 AM, K Miller wrote:
>>>> Owen McKenzie wrote:
>>>>> On 5/14/2013 10:52 PM, K Miller wrote:
>>>>>> Owen McKenzie wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/14/2013 3:25 PM, K Miller wrote:
>>>>>>>> Owen McKenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2013 10:53 AM, Janet Wilder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You strongly favor the death penalty. Is that not also the
>>>>>>>>>> taking of a human life?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you think they're comparable?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, do you always answer a question with a question?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What makes you think I do?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you ask?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you care?
>>>>
>>>> Why don't you?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> What makes you think I don't?
>>
>> So (hi oz), am I to think you do?
>>
>>
> So (hi, oz), why are you involving oz in this?

So (hi, oz), why shouldn't I involve oz in this?

[Owen McKenzie]

On 5/16/2013 7:50 AM, K Miller wrote:
> Owen McKenzie wrote:
>> On 5/15/2013 5:09 PM, K Miller wrote:
>>> Owen McKenzie wrote:
>>>> On 5/15/2013 11:00 AM, K Miller wrote:
>>>>> Owen McKenzie wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/14/2013 10:52 PM, K Miller wrote:
>>>>>>> Owen McKenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2013 3:25 PM, K Miller wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Owen McKenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2013 10:53 AM, Janet Wilder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You strongly favor the death penalty. Is that not also the
>>>>>>>>>>> taking of a human life?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do you think they're comparable?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, do you always answer a question with a question?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What makes you think I do?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why do you ask?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you care?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why don't you?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> What makes you think I don't?
>>>
>>> So (hi oz), am I to think you do?
>>>
>>>
>> So (hi, oz), why are you involving oz in this?
>
> So (hi, oz), why shouldn't I involve oz in this?
>
>

So (hi, oz), why do you keep answering my questions with questions?

[K Miller]

Owen McKenzie wrote:
>>
>>
> So (hi, oz), why do you keep answering my questions with questions?

So (hi, oz), are you saying that my answering your questions with my
questions is a problem?

[Vito00]

"Lone Haranguer" <linu...@gmail.com> wrote

| Vito00 wrote:
| > "Lone Haranguer" <linu...@gmail.com> wrote
| > | Psst! Vito: You'll be happy to learn that Dr. Gosnell was
| > | convicted of 3 counts of first degree murder....all 3 counts for
| > | killing those non-persons you consider fair game for termination.
| > |
| > | Also one count of involuntary manslaughter for the woman who died
| > | of a drug overdose administered by his untrained staff.
| > |
| > Yes! Proving my contention that our existing laws work
| How do you come to that conclusion? His butcher shop went
| uninspected by those charged with enforcing the law for 17 years
| despite numerous complaints.
|
| You're calling THAT an example of a well enforced law?

Quite the opposite. I said that the CURRENT LAW obviously works WHEN it
is enforced - proving that we do not need new laws, just to enforce the
ones we have.

|
| > and that the RTL
| > nutters can find another cause ....
|
| I would say you are the nutter since you have no problem with
| killing babies.

Only in your addled mind, Linus.

|
| > and another way to keep Democrats in
| > control of the government.
| >
| So you would have voted for Hitler rather than someone who had
| some moral standards.

How I vote matters not. Given a choice between Hillary and, say, Ryan I
would bet the majority of US voters would elect Hillary thanks to Ryan's
mysonegistic stand on abortion and birth control - just like they elected
then re-elected 0bama. 0bama didn't win, the GOP lost. And they're
getting ready to do it again and again and ......

[Bruce S]

On an interesting side note, the actual genetics of the matter are
completely irrelevant for married men in most of the United States.
Under the law, If they are married, he is the "father" even if he did
not supply the sperm to make it happen.

[Vito00]

"Larry" <La...@fishing.net> wrote

| Hank and Janet, why should the father not have a say in the life or
| death of his child?

Because it may not be his child?

[Vito00]

"Hank" <nineb...@aol.com> wrote

As a side question (because I dont' know the answer), can a man order a
DNA test if the mother says he isn't the father?

------------------------
Prolly not, at least in Ca. Couple I knew split up. She became pregnant
by another man before the divorce - admitted it in court. But the judge
ruled he had to pay all her natal expenses and child support saying that
since they were married it was LEGALLY his kid.

[Bruce S]

I know of a case where the mother wanted to deny visitation/custody to
her ex-husband because he was not the biological father and she had DNA
evidence to prove it. The judge told her and her attorney that he did
not want that topic even brought up in court as it was inadmissible. In
that state the only consideration was that she was married when the
child was conceived, so her ex was legally the father. The former
husband now has full custody.

[Hank]

I guess I should've been clearer. I'll try again. If a single man "thinks" he is the father a child, can he have the courts order a DNA test if the single mother says he isn't the father, and the single mother refuses to name anybody as the father?

Hank

[Hunter Hampton]

On 5/16/2013 9:31 AM, Vito00 wrote:

> Prolly not, at least in Ca. Couple I knew split up. She became pregnant
> by another man before the divorce - admitted it in court. But the judge
> ruled he had to pay all her natal expenses and child support saying that
> since they were married it was LEGALLY his kid.

I've heard about that happening, i think its outrageous.

Hunter

[Janet Wilder]

On 5/16/2013 4:48 AM, Hank wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 5:52:08 PM UTC-4, Larry wrote:
>
>> Hank and Janet, why should the father not have a say in the life or
>>
>> death of his child?
>>
>> --
>>
>> Larry
>>
>> Citrus County Florida
>
> IMO, it would be a great thing IF the father could have a say in such matters. However, how does one know if he is the father until the child is born? Another thing is, how can the father stop an abortion? If a women wants an abortion, she will get one, even if she has to do it herself.

This is because the Supreme Court ruling was based on a woman's right to
privacy. The ruling had nothing to do with the right of the unborn
child/fetus, whatever you want to call the tiny life.

> As a side question (because I dont' know the answer), can a man order a DNA test if the mother says he isn't the father?
>
> Hank
>

[Janet Wilder]

That law is part of the "women as chattel" mentality that went out of
fashion long ago.

I think it is extremely outrageous to make a man pay for the product of
his wife's infidelities. Just as outrageous as men who sire children
not paying for the support of those children.

[Lone Haranguer]

Vito00 wrote:
> "Lone Haranguer" <linu...@gmail.com> wrote
> | Vito00 wrote:
> | > "Lone Haranguer" <linu...@gmail.com> wrote
> | > | Psst! Vito: You'll be happy to learn that Dr. Gosnell was
> | > | convicted of 3 counts of first degree murder....all 3 counts for
> | > | killing those non-persons you consider fair game for termination.
> | > |
> | > | Also one count of involuntary manslaughter for the woman who died
> | > | of a drug overdose administered by his untrained staff.
> | > |
> | > Yes! Proving my contention that our existing laws work
> | How do you come to that conclusion? His butcher shop went
> | uninspected by those charged with enforcing the law for 17 years
> | despite numerous complaints.
> |
> | You're calling THAT an example of a well enforced law?
>
> Quite the opposite. I said that the CURRENT LAW obviously works WHEN it
> is enforced -

But because of that law, people like Gosnell are able to open
their butcher shops and because of people like you, those that
are SUPPOSED to enforce the law avoid doing it.

> proving that we do not need new laws, just to enforce the
> ones we have.

People like you complain when the laws are enforced. You stuck
up for Stiller the baby killer when he was caught breaking the law.
You stuck up for the Dr. who wrote bogus diagnoses to justify
late term abortions right up to the minute they jerked her license.

IOW you FAVOR breaking the law and support those that do it.

> |
> | > and that the RTL
> | > nutters can find another cause ....
> |
> | I would say you are the nutter since you have no problem with
> | killing babies.

> when

> Only in your addled mind, Linus.

You have yet to condemn anyone caught doing later-term abortions
because you see ANY abortion as a good thing.

LZ
>

[Lone Haranguer]

You are still living in a cave.

Could you at least TRY to educate yourself?

"Amniocentesis also provides access to DNA for paternity testing
prior to delivery. DNA is collected from the potential father and
is compared to DNA obtained from the baby during amniocentesis."

http://americanpregnancy.org/prenataltesting/amniocentesis.html

LZ

[Owen McKenzie]

Why do you think I think it's a problem?

[K Miller]

Owen McKenzie wrote:
> On 5/16/2013 10:35 AM, K Miller wrote:
>> Owen McKenzie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>> So (hi, oz), why do you keep answering my questions with questions?
>>
>> So (hi, oz), are you saying that my answering your questions with my
>> questions is a problem?
>>
>>
> Why do you think I think it's a problem?

Don't you?

[Owen McKenzie]

On 5/16/2013 5:20 PM, K Miller wrote:
> Owen McKenzie wrote:
>> On 5/16/2013 10:35 AM, K Miller wrote:
>>> Owen McKenzie wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> So (hi, oz), why do you keep answering my questions with questions?
>>>
>>> So (hi, oz), are you saying that my answering your questions with my
>>> questions is a problem?
>>>
>>>
>> Why do you think I think it's a problem?
>
> Don't you?
>
>

I think this has gone on far enough, don't you?

[K Miller]

Owen McKenzie wrote:
> On 5/16/2013 5:20 PM, K Miller wrote:
>> Owen McKenzie wrote:
>>> On 5/16/2013 10:35 AM, K Miller wrote:
>>>> Owen McKenzie wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> So (hi, oz), why do you keep answering my questions with
>>>>> questions?
>>>>
>>>> So (hi, oz), are you saying that my answering your questions with
>>>> my questions is a problem?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Why do you think I think it's a problem?
>>
>> Don't you?
>>
>>
> I think this has gone on far enough, don't you?

Ha! Actually, I do. It's beginning to remind me of Osbourne and Will...
:-)