Video Catches Planned Parenthood Covering Up Rape
J
'pro-woman' agenda? Between protecting rapists and practicing sex-selection
abortions ( you know which sex gets killed ), women certainly don't need
friends like that.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/oct/08100607.html
Video Catches Planned Parenthood Covering Up Statutory Rape
ARLINGTON, VA, October 6, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Students for Life of
America (SFLA) has released a video exposing two Planned Parenthood clinics
in Winston-Salem and Charlotte, North Carolina covering up statutory rape of
young girls. To view the video, go here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkakpcWSyWY
In June of 2008, two college women volunteering for Students for Life of
America entered two clinics in North Carolina posing as underage girls, 15
and 14, who just had unprotected sex with their mother's live-in boyfriend
who was in his 30s. Each girl told the clinic workers that he suggested she
come get the morning the Morning After Pill. According to N.C. Gen. Statue
7B-301 and 7B-101, this information was enough to trigger North Carolina
statutory rape reporting laws, obligating any person who learned of this
story to report the crime to authorities.
In both visits, Planned Parenthood staffers acknowledged that what was
happening to the girls was statutory rape and in one case even repeatedly
admitted that they were required to report the incident.
However, after the visits, Students for Life of America filed North Carolina
Public Records Requests to find out if the Planned Parenthood locations had
reported the crimes. SFLA has obtained and posted documents, which show that
the crimes were not reported to authorities in either Charlotte or
Winston-Salem. To view the reports from police department authorities, go
here: http://www.studentsforlife.org/index.php/plannedparenthoodin...
In addition to covering up the statutory rape of these young girls by
failing to report, both Planned Parenthoods were willing to help them get on
birth control without their parents' knowledge, which would prolong the
abuse while covering evidence. One staffer in Charlotte even said to the
girl, "You can do it now," and set an appointment for the minor to obtain
birth control the following week.
Further, both clinics told the girls that anyone over the age of 18 could
simply go to a drug store and buy the Morning After Pill for them, giving
the girls' rapists a tool to further cover their crime of rape.
SFLA's Executive Director, Kristan Hawkins commented on the videos today
saying, "These videos are simply shocking. That Planned Parenthood staffers
acknowledged the girls were being raped and then did not report the crime is
horrific. They allowed these girls to go home to their rapists and even
confirmed that their rapists could get the Morning After Pill for them to
cover their crimes."
Tom McClusky, Vice President of Government Affairs for the Family Research
Council, responded to the investigation, "As long as Planned Parenthood puts
their fealty to abortion on demand above protecting young girls from
statutory rapists then investigations such as the ones done by SFL will be
needed."
To view the video, go here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkakpcWSyWY
--
J Young
Jvis...@live.com
Owner of Eric F Berg aka 'LC'
* here's the entire collection of efbe...@hotmail.com
Obama/Biden '08
Ray Fischer
>Anyone who supports PPA should be ashamed. This is what you call advancing a
>'pro-woman' agenda? Between protecting rapists and practicing sex-selection
>abortions ( you know which sex gets killed ), women certainly don't need
>friends like that.
Your own story shows it to be a lie, nazi turd. No rapes were covered up.
What is true, however, is that your church covered up the rapes an
molestations of children.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
--sexkitten--
I'm sure he'll ignore that little tidbit, as usual.
Sean_M...@yahoo.com
John Baker
>Anyone who supports PPA should be ashamed. This is what you call advancing a
>'pro-woman' agenda? Between protecting rapists and practicing sex-selection
>abortions ( you know which sex gets killed ), women certainly don't need
>friends like that.
Is there no lie so despicable you won't tell it, IBen?
Andrew Usher
The story as written is true, I assume, or you'd come up with an
actual argument against it. Why can't you give an honest opinion
on it? It's because you abortionists are in denial, deep denial, and
always have been because no one can say with a straight face that
abortion is not a kind of murder.
By the way, I actually oppose mandatory notification laws, but as
long as they exist, I don't see why PP should get an exception,
as seems to be the status quo. (See! An actual argument!)
Andrew Usher
LC
<Sean_M...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2bd0a42c-cbe3-4d8d...@l76g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> >Anyone who supports PPA should be ashamed. This is what you call
> >advancing a'pro-woman' agenda? Between protecting rapists and practicing
> >sex-selectionabortions ( you know which sex gets killed ), women
> >certainly don't needfriends like that.
> Your own story shows it to be a lie, nazi turd. No rapes were covered up.
> What is true, however, is that your church covered up the rapes an
> molestations of children.
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfisc...@sonic.net
-------------------------------
> How is j a 'nazi'?
Let me count the ways:
"America, with the exception of the jews and niggers, are not a
nation of pigs."
From: "J" <bi...@ass.com>
Message-ID: <1f4mfa....@news.alt.net>
"That's the Jew God they're talking about, not my God."
From: "J" <Jvis...@live.com>
Message-ID: <1ug729....@news.alt.net>
"I'm a devout Catholic and would like to see the Muslims start
stoking-up the ovens in Tel Aviv."
From: "Auric Hellman" <adhe...@volcanomail.com>, a known "J" nym
Message-ID: <1158543753.0...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
"Sunday, April 15th is Holocaust Memorial Day. What is the appropriate
greeting one gives this day? Does one say "Happy Holocaust" or send
cards that read "Wish you were there"? I'm trying my best to be
politically correct."
From: "Auric Hellman" <adhe...@volcanomail.com> a known "J" nym
Message-ID: <1176087137.1...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
"Q: what's the difference between a jew and a pizza? A: pizza doesn't scream
when you put it in the oven.
Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha ;-)"
From: "'quack-quack'" <quack-qu...@hotmail.com> a known "J" nym
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: a jewish riddle
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:51:40 -0400
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Message-ID: <9aGdnT4p1b9...@giganews.com>
Etc., etc.
Plenty more where those came from.
John Baker
<k_over...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Oct 7, 12:24 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> J <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>> >Anyone who supports PPA should be ashamed. This is what you call advancing a
>> >'pro-woman' agenda? Between protecting rapists and practicing sex-selection
>> >abortions ( you know which sex gets killed ), women certainly don't need
>> >friends like that.
>>
>> Your own story shows it to be a lie, nazi turd. No rapes were covered up.
>>
>> What is true, however, is that your church covered up the rapes an
>> molestations of children.
>
>The story as written is true, I assume, or you'd come up with an
>actual argument against it. Why can't you give an honest opinion
>on it? It's because you abortionists are in denial, deep denial, and
>always have been because no one can say with a straight face that
>abortion is not a kind of murder.
The law says so, Skippy. Deal.
Ranting
"John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:a32ne41g6nn2ntmsr...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 06:35:43 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Usher
> <k_over...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Oct 7, 12:24 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>> J <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>>> >Anyone who supports PPA should be ashamed. This is what you call
>>> >advancing a
>>> >'pro-woman' agenda? Between protecting rapists and practicing
>>> >sex-selection
>>> >abortions ( you know which sex gets killed ), women certainly don't
>>> >need
>>> >friends like that.
>>>
>>> Your own story shows it to be a lie, nazi turd. No rapes were covered
>>> up.
>>>
>>> What is true, however, is that your church covered up the rapes an
>>> molestations of children.
>>
>>The story as written is true, I assume, or you'd come up with an
>>actual argument against it. Why can't you give an honest opinion
>>on it? It's because you abortionists are in denial, deep denial, and
>>always have been because no one can say with a straight face that
>>abortion is not a kind of murder.
>
> The law says so, Skippy. Deal.
>
>>
Wasn't that long ago that the law said differently and if the SC changes its
slant it will say different again.
AND just because the law says something, doesn't mean it is right.
Andrew Usher
> >The story as written is true, I assume, or you'd come up with an
> >actual argument against it. Why can't you give an honest opinion
> >on it? It's because you abortionists are in denial, deep denial, and
> >always have been because no one can say with a straight face that
> >abortion is not a kind of murder.
>
> The law says so, Skippy. Deal.
The law can't define moral terms, which is how I am using 'murder'.
Substitute if you wish 'homicide' or 'killing of a person'.
Andrew Usher
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- NO FACTS Support the RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas!
>> "Jon Young"/"IBen Getiner" <Jvisi...@live.com> PARROTED
>> More Biased SWILL from the RRR Cult ---
>>> Anyone who supports PPA should be ashamed. This is what you
>>> call advancing a 'pro-woman' agenda? Between protecting rapists
>>> and practicing sex-selection abortions ( you know which sex gets
>>> killed ), women certainly don't need friends like that.
>> Your own story shows it to be a lie, nazi turd. No rapes were
>> covered up.
>>
>> What is true, however, is that your church covered up the rapes
>> an molestations of children.
> The story as written is true, I assume, or you'd come up with an
> actual argument against it. Why can't you give an honest opinion
> on it? It's because you abortionists are in denial, deep denial, and
> always have been because no one can say with a straight face that
> abortion is not a kind of murder.
First of all, Ray and I have had some HUGE differences, but I've
never seen any reason to dispute anything he's ever said on the topic
of the valuable REMEDY of abortion.
And you said, "you abortionists" to him. I don't know what Ray
does for a living, but he's posting in here so often, he can't be an
abortion provider. Doctors wouldn't have nearly that much free time.
And we who are sensibly, fairly, compassionately and staunchly
PRO-Choice have NOTHING to live in denial about. We are helping
to ensure that girls and women who are enabled by easy access to
abortion, worldwide, at the rate of 57,000,000 a year, to put their
lives back on track and have all of their future opportunities RESTORED
will **NEVER** again be FORCED to gestate UNwanted pregnancies
to term against their will -- a very real, 9-month-long form of RAPE.
If I could somehow ever be forced to oppose easy access to safe
and legal abortion, I wouldn't be able to live with myself.
Abortion is not even REMOTELY murder, and I am writing that with
a VERY straight face -- so YOU are a blatant LIAR.
Even the BIBLE gives NO support whatsoever to your loathsome
stance against women and personal liberties:
-- The Bible NEVER defends RPEs as PEOPLE.
-- ALL human life the Bible defends has/had been BORN.
-- The Bible make it very CLEAR that *personhood* begins
at BIRTH, in is passages that emphasize the importance
of ---
-- BIRTHrights
-- First-BORNS
-- BIRTH order.
The SIG, below, provides the actual FACTS about abortion. And
to the best of my knowledge, NO Anti-Choice lout has *ever* yet been
able to disprove ANY of them. NOT even ONCE, in over 8 years!
ANTI-Choicers are totally *without excuse*!
-- (¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯)
xana...@mchsi.com -- To E-Mail me.
http://www.roadrat.com -- Learn how to get PAID to TRAVEL.
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Great TACTICS to Fight Bigotry.
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Christianity *vs.* Bigotry.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
ANALYZING ABORTION-ON-REQUEST* in the USA
*(Abortion Rights as they have existed since 1-22-73)
Abortion, just like aspirin, is nothing more than a valuable
REMEDY for an unwanted medical condition. Folks who are
Pro-Choice are not "pro-abortion" any more than there are any
such people as those who are "pro-aspirin." People who are
Pro-Choice regarding abortion defend the right of all girls and
women to have ready, unfettered, and legal ACCESS to that
remedy. And they would defend the right of girls and women
to have no impairments to ACCESS to the right to full gestation,
if *that* were their choice -- if there were any loons running
around seeking to deprive them of that option. Thus, Pro-
Choicers are sometimes misperceived as favoring one option
over the other. They do not. They support both options
EQUALLY. The misperception happens because the remedy of
abortion is the *only* one of the two options that has a crowd
of hateful, screeching, and ignorant bigots opposing it.
ANTI-Choice louts irrationally seek to impose immense
hardship upon more than a million girls and women per year,
in the USA, by again FORCING them to gestate to term,
against their will, as was the case in the Pre-Roe vs. Wade
Dark Ages. A very real, 9-month-long form of RAPE. Such
a scenario would cause the loss of HUGE ranges of future
opportunities to those girls and women, unless they were
able to afford travel to FREE locations where abortion was
still safe, legal and unfettered. ANTI-Choicers are sociopaths,
and are totally without excuse. (And to date, NO Anti-Choicer
or RRR Cultist (usually the same people) has ever yet been
able to refute ANY of the points made in this article. Which
shows how*monumentally* morally-bankrupt they truly are.)
To see a grave and long-term DANGER to America, if McCain
wins the upcoming election, please read these; in each case
the components of the URLS follow, in case one or both get
shortened in posting.) ---
http://apifar.blogspot.com/2007/11/vital-warning-unseen-unheeded-now.html
http://
apifar.blogspot.com/
2007/11/vital-warning-unseen-unheeded-now.html
http://apifar.blogspot.com/2007/12/surreal-alternate-reality-if-democrats.html
http://
apifar.blogspot.com/
2007/12/surreal-alternate-reality-if-democrats.html
Abortions obtained by girls and women terminate three of
the four of the reproductive-process entities (RPEs): zygotes,
embryoes & fetuses, up until the 7th month** of gestation)
which have ALL of these characteristics in common with the
first stage -- gametes (sperm and ova):
-- Human
-- Unique
-- As a stage of development, indispensable to future birth
-- Have NEVER experienced conscious awareness*
-- Alive
...which makes it hypocritical when abortion opponents
try to defend the later three stages of the reproductive
process but NOT the Stage One entities (gametes).
** (AFTER the 7th month of gestation begins, conscious
awareness may be possible, but all the other of the above-
listed attributes still apply. (But by then, the ONLY abortions
being performed are for medical emergencies.) In fact, the
procedure that Anti-Choicers LYINGLY call "partial-birth
abortion" NEVER was. It is the MID-term procedure whose
REAL name is ID&E: intact Dilation and Extraction. Which
was almost always done around 4-1/2 MONTHS *before*
birth typically occurs. Anti-Choicers are almost universally
DEVOID of honest. And usually, too, of much in the way
of intelligence.)
And the Bible, which is the primary moral authority for the
majority of Americans; 83% of them:
-- In NO way condemns abortion.
-- Doesn't even MENTION abortion.
-- By Jesus' day, abortion had been around for 1,000 yrs.
-- Contains NO defenses of RPEs as people.
-- Reserves ALL of its protection for already-BORN people
-- That it regards personhood to begin at BIRTH is
made clear by it's immense emphasis on the import-
ance it ascribes to BIRTH order, BIRTHrights. and
first-BORNS.
-- In certain cases, condemned BABIES to horrible deaths.
-- Never indicates that there is anything "special" about
fertilization.
-- Thus making gametes (the Stage One RPEs) *equal*
in worth to the other three stages.
-- More than a QUADRILLION gametes are electively
aborted DAILY, worldwide... by *men.* All of
which had been *potential* and unique people.
Abortion-on-request enables women to:
-- Put their lives back on track immediately.
-- Restore their well-being to pre-unplanned pregnancy levels.
-- Vast majority of women are happy with this decision.
-- Most women have NO regrets afterward.
-- Restore their full range of future opportunities to
PRE-ill-timed pregnancy levels. Immediately!
-- Avoid physical difficulties of a 9-month pregnancy.
-- Especially important for young girls, ~12-16.
-- Statistically 6-10 times safer than carrying-to-term.
-- Avoid the trauma of adopting-out, and wondering later.
-- Avoid possibility of changing mind about adopting-out,
and those losing the chance to pursue many of the
future opportunities that they formerly had had.
-- Reduce likelihood of long-term economic deprivation.
-- Avoid bringing a child into a less-loving home.
-- Avoid bringing child into unstable environment.
-- Wait until timing is better before having children.
-- Who then are MORE likely to be loved.
-- Who then are MORE likely to be in stable home.
-- And thus are LESS like to have troubled childhoods.
-- And therefore more likely NOT to become criminals.
-- And thus are MORE likely to become successful.
Legal abortion-on-request:
-- Is exponentially safer than illegal abortions.
-- Thus saving the lives of hundreds or thousands of women/yr.
-- Has been available throughout the USA since early 1973.
-- Between 1973 and 2000, 30 million women have had them.
-- Between 1973 and 2008, 45 million abortions have been done.
Other related facts include:
-- MOST women who have abortions go on to HAVE kids later,
when the timing is better .
-- Those children would NOT have been born if the abortions
had not taken place earlier, because the same sperm and
ova would not have matched up.
-- Those "2nd-round" kids STARTED reaching age 13 in
significant numbers by 1988. By the early 1990s, millions
of those "2nd-round" kids were in their mid-teens by the
early 1990s.
-- Mid-teens is the highest risk age for crime, and this
continues into the early 20s.
-- As pointed out above, wanted and loved children are
LESS prone to criminal behavior.
-- By 1995, millions of "2nd-round kids" were entering the
workforce. Perhaps a million-plus MORE have entered it
every year SINCE. By 2000, the oldest ones had reached
the age where they could be getting quite successful.
-- Since the early 1990s, the rate of violent crime in the USA
has declined dramatically, and by 2000 had reached 40-year
lows in many categories.
-- The decade of the 1990s, and the 21st century to date,
in the USA, has been the most economically-dynamic
period of time for any nation in the entire history of the
world, despite temporary fluctuations.
Although the exact figures may be impossible to derive, the
probability that abortion-on-request has SIGNIFICANTLY benefitted
all of America's society in terms of the crime rate and the economy
is QUITE strong, despite the temporary anomaly caused by the attack
on Sept. 11, 2001, and the current gas-prices crunch. And a strong
U.S. economy benefits the entire world.
-- Originally posted to alt.abortion
and talk.abortion on Aug. 13, 2000
and updated since.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Ray Fischer
> rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> J <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>> >Anyone who supports PPA should be ashamed. This is what you call advancing a
>> >'pro-woman' agenda? Between protecting rapists and practicing sex-selection
>> >abortions ( you know which sex gets killed ), women certainly don't need
>> >friends like that.
>>
>> Your own story shows it to be a lie, nazi turd. No rapes were covered up.
>>
>> What is true, however, is that your church covered up the rapes an
>> molestations of children.
>
>The story as written is true, I assume, or you'd come up with an
>actual argument against it.
Like the fact that no rapes were covered up?
> Why can't you give an honest opinion
>on it?
Are you stupid?
> It's because you abortionists are in denial, deep denial, and
As opposed to you pro-liars who habitually lie?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
> John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote:
>
>> >The story as written is true, I assume, or you'd come up with an
>> >actual argument against it. Why can't you give an honest opinion
>> >on it? It's because you abortionists are in denial, deep denial, and
>> >always have been because no one can say with a straight face that
>> >abortion is not a kind of murder.
>>
>> The law says so, Skippy. Deal.
>
>The law can't define moral terms, which is how I am using 'murder'.
Then by that standard YOU are a murderer.
Which makes you not at all qualified to criticize anybody else.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Mark Sebree
> On Oct 7, 10:04 am, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote:
>
> > >The story as written is true, I assume, or you'd come up with an
> > >actual argument against it. Why can't you give an honest opinion
> > >on it? It's because you abortionists are in denial, deep denial, and
> > >always have been because no one can say with a straight face that
> > >abortion is not a kind of murder.
>
> > The law says so, Skippy. Deal.
>
> The law can't define moral terms, which is how I am using 'murder'.
Murder is a legal term, not a moral one. Your use of the word
"murder" is a blatant lie.
> Substitute if you wish 'homicide' or 'killing of a person'.
Why? There is no person even harmed in an abortion, and certainly no
homicide.
Mark Sebree
>
> Andrew Usher
Kelsey Bjarnason
No, not "habitually lie". More strictly correct would be "incessantly
lie".
Take the very name "pro life". If one opposes them, then obviously such
a person is anti-life, right? This is known as a "poisoning the well"
fallacy. Which means the very term they've adopted to describe
themselves involves a fallacy, and it is all downhill from there.
There is not, of necessity, any such thing as an honest pro-lifer; if
there were, they wouldn't _be_ a pro-lifer; their honesty would prevent
them accepting the fallacious terminology.
You cannot deal sensibly with people who base their entire viewpoint
around wilful dishonesty and try to claim it as a virtue.
Syd M.
> Anyone who supports PPA should be ashamed. This is what you call advancing a
> 'pro-woman' agenda? Between protecting rapists and practicing sex-selection
> abortions ( you know which sex gets killed ), women certainly don't need
> friends like that.
>
PDW
Andrew Usher
> >The story as written is true, I assume, or you'd come up with an
> >actual argument against it.
>
> Like the fact that no rapes were covered up?
The headline accurately expressed the contents of the article.
> > Why can't you give an honest opinion on it?
>
> Are you stupid?
That's neither honest nor an opinion ...
> > It's because you abortionists are in denial, deep denial, and
>
> As opposed to you pro-liars who habitually lie?
I have never lied.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> These liars believe in ensoulment at conception but can't admit that
> it's merely their religious belief.
I don't know if there is a soul. Can you prove that there isn't? True,
if there is, it would have to start at conception; that's the only
time that makes sense.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> Take the very name "pro life". If one opposes them, then obviously such
> a person is anti-life, right?
'Pro-life' is no more biased a term than is 'pro-choice'. Both, I
think, are useful shorthand for the two sides of this debate.
> This is known as a "poisoning the well"
> fallacy. Which means the very term they've adopted to describe
> themselves involves a fallacy, and it is all downhill from there.
It's only a fallacy if it is used in a logical argument. I don't think
the term 'pro-life' is ever used in that way; certianly I wouldn't.
> You cannot deal sensibly with people who base their entire viewpoint
> around wilful dishonesty and try to claim it as a virtue.
You know, I think quibbling over terminology, and not admitting that
there is another side to the argument, both indicate serious
weakness.
Andrew Usher
Ray Fischer
> ca...@optonline.net wrote:
>
>> These liars believe in ensoulment at conception but can't admit that
>> it's merely their religious belief.
>
>I don't know if there is a soul. Can you prove that there isn't?
Can you prove that I'm not God?
> True,
>if there is, it would have to start at conception; that's the only
>time that makes sense.
It makes no sense at all. First, you don't even know what
"conception" means. Second, identical twins form well AFTER
conception when the embryo splits into two. Does that mean that
one twin doesn't have a soul?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Oct 7, 12:54 pm, Kelsey Bjarnason <kels...@lgisp.net> wrote:
>
>> Take the very name "pro life". If one opposes them, then obviously such
>> a person is anti-life, right?
>
>'Pro-life' is no more biased a term than is 'pro-choice'. Both, I
>think, are useful shorthand for the two sides of this debate.
Pro-life is actually not at all about saving lives. Quite the
contrary - it's more about punishing and killing people who do not
obey.
Pro-choice is just what it says.
>> This is known as a "poisoning the well"
>> fallacy. Which means the very term they've adopted to describe
>> themselves involves a fallacy, and it is all downhill from there.
>
>It's only a fallacy if it is used in a logical argument.
And there is certainly a deart of logical arguments coming from the
pro-lie side.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Oct 7, 10:32 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> >The story as written is true, I assume, or you'd come up with an
>> >actual argument against it.
>>
>> Like the fact that no rapes were covered up?
>
>The headline accurately expressed the contents of the article.
How does anybody cover up a rape which didn't occur, pro-liar?
>> > It's because you abortionists are in denial, deep denial, and
>>
>> As opposed to you pro-liars who habitually lie?
>
>I have never lied.
You did just above.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Robert
The two sides are simple and easily understood. One side supports a
woman's right to have a child. The other side support forcing women
too have babies. This is the side that tell all the lies.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Andrew Usher
> >I don't know if there is a soul. Can you prove that there isn't?
>
> Can you prove that I'm not God?
That hypothesis is not worthy of serious consideration.
> > True,
> >if there is, it would have to start at conception; that's the only
> >time that makes sense.
>
> It makes no sense at all. First, you don't even know what
> "conception" means. Second, identical twins form well AFTER
> conception when the embryo splits into two. Does that mean that
> one twin doesn't have a soul?
That is a difficult question. However, assuming that the soul is
deposited at some later time doesn't make sense either. There
is no moment where there is a discrete change that would
allow us to say, now the fetus has a soul', or is conscious.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> >'Pro-life' is no more biased a term than is 'pro-choice'. Both, I
> >think, are useful shorthand for the two sides of this debate.
>
> Pro-life is actually not at all about saving lives. Quite the
> contrary - it's more about punishing and killing people who do not
> obey.
I have never seen pro-life arguments in favor of killing anyone.
Surely that would be ridiculous.
> >> This is known as a "poisoning the well"
> >> fallacy. Which means the very term they've adopted to describe
> >> themselves involves a fallacy, and it is all downhill from there.
>
> >It's only a fallacy if it is used in a logical argument.
>
> And there is certainly a deart of logical arguments coming from the
> pro-lie side.
I haven't seen any logical arguments coming from you. The
truth is the that pro-choice position is not based on reason,
but on rationalisation.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Oct 7, 10:32 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
> >> >The story as written is true, I assume, or you'd come up with an
> >> >actual argument against it.
>
> >> Like the fact that no rapes were covered up?
>
> >The headline accurately expressed the contents of the article.
>
> How does anybody cover up a rape which didn't occur, pro-liar?
They 'covered up' a non-existent rape, true. The article makes that
clear, and the original headline does say 'statutory rape' and not
'rape'.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> The two sides are simple and easily understood. One side supports a
> woman's right to have a child.
You mean to kill a child.
> The other side support forcing women
> too have babies. This is the side that tell all the lies.
Projection, I reckon.
Andrew Usher
Mark Sebree
> On Oct 8, 3:34 pm, Robert <rob...@netportusa.com> wrote:
>
> > The two sides are simple and easily understood. One side supports a
> > woman's right to have a child.
>
> You mean to kill a child.
No, to have a child, and only if she chooses to. No infants are
killed in abortion since infants cannot get an abortion since they
cannot become pregnant.
>
> > The other side support forcing women
> > too have babies. This is the side that tell all the lies.
>
> Projection, I reckon.
>
No, the truth. The anti-choice position is to force women to continue
unwanted pregnancies. They are also well known for their habit of
lying. Just as you did in the first part of your post.
Mark Sebree
> Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> > > The two sides are simple and easily understood. One side supports a
> > > woman's right to have a child.
>
> > You mean to kill a child.
>
> No, to have a child, and only if she chooses to.
I don't think abortion is necessary to exercise that right.
> No infants are
> killed in abortion since infants cannot get an abortion since they
> cannot become pregnant.
Say what? You know what the actual argument is here. Why
can't you just admit that you take it on faith that a fetus can't
be considered a person?
> > > The other side support forcing women
> > > too have babies. This is the side that tell all the lies.
>
> > Projection, I reckon.
>
> No, the truth. The anti-choice position is to force women to continue
> unwanted pregnancies. They are also well known for their habit of
> lying. Just as you did in the first part of your post.
Actually, I've stated before that I would not forbid abortion. And I
refuse
to allow you to redefine 'lying'. Lying means to intentionally tell an
untruth.
Andrew Usher
Mark Sebree
> On Oct 8, 3:29 pm, Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net> wrote:
>
> > > > The two sides are simple and easily understood. One side supports a
> > > > woman's right to have a child.
>
> > > You mean to kill a child.
>
> > No, to have a child, and only if she chooses to.
>
> I don't think abortion is necessary to exercise that right.
Really? How else to you know of to end an unwanted pregnancy
immediately, as in the first trimester? Time machines, which do not
exist, and demanding for her to complete her unwanted pregnancy, which
does not provide her with a choice, are not valid options since either
solves the problem of her currently experiencing an unwanted
pregnancy.
>
> > No infants are
> > killed in abortion since infants cannot get an abortion since they
> > cannot become pregnant.
>
> Say what? You know what the actual argument is here. Why
> can't you just admit that you take it on faith that a fetus can't
> be considered a person?
Because I am dealing with knowledge rather than faith. Unlike you, I
can actually read the law. A fetus is not a person since it has not
been born. What's more, dishonestly calling it a person does not help
you since no person may use or affect another person's body without
the used person's continuing consent. The used person may use any
method necessary to immediately end that unwanted use. That is why
rape victims are allowed to fight back, and people being mugged can
fight back against their assailants. During an unwanted pregnancy,
the woman's body is being used and abused without her ongoing consent
and against her will.
>
> > > > The other side support forcing women
> > > > too have babies. This is the side that tell all the lies.
>
> > > Projection, I reckon.
>
> > No, the truth. The anti-choice position is to force women to continue
> > unwanted pregnancies. They are also well known for their habit of
> > lying. Just as you did in the first part of your post.
>
> Actually, I've stated before that I would not forbid abortion.
Would you restrict it and deny it to most women that would want one?
If the answer is "yes", then it does not make much difference. You
would still be trying to force hundreds of thousands of women to
continue unwanted pregnancies each year in the USA alone.
> And I refuse to allow you to redefine 'lying'.
Good thing I am not doing so then.
> Lying means to intentionally tell an
> untruth.
And that is what anti-choice advocates like you do on a regular
basis. I am simply countering your lies with the truth.
Mark Sebree
>
> Andrew Usher
The Chief Instigator
> On Oct 8, 3:34 pm, Robert <rob...@netportusa.com> wrote:
>
>> The two sides are simple and easily understood. One side supports a
>> woman's right to have a child.
>
> You mean to kill a child.
You're amusing others in the Cities that are waiting for their time at the U
on the east bank of the Big Muddy. (Maybe you should drive a truck across
the Lowry Avenue bridge.) It's the woman's choice, since she can get
pregnant and you can't.
>> The other side support forcing women too have babies. This is the side
>> that tell all the lies.
>
> Projection, I reckon.
>
> Andrew Usher
Projection is apparently a significant part of your life.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Rockford 5, Houston 2 (April 25)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 11 vs. Chicago, 7:35
The Chief Instigator
> On Oct 8, 3:29 pm, Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net> wrote:
>
>> > > The two sides are simple and easily understood. One side supports a
>> > > woman's right to have a child.
>>
>> > You mean to kill a child.
>>
>> No, to have a child, and only if she chooses to.
>
> I don't think abortion is necessary to exercise that right.
You'll never get to exercise that right...and if the woman in question
doesn't consent to reproduction if she consents to sex, she's allowed her
choice.
>> No infants are killed in abortion since infants cannot get an abortion
>> since they cannot become pregnant.
>
> Say what? You know what the actual argument is here. Why
> can't you just admit that you take it on faith that a fetus can't
> be considered a person?
It isn't considered one, by law, at least through the first two-thirds of
the pregnancy...and elective abortions done in the final third are almost
invariably because the fetus won't survive the birth. Women don't just
decide on a whim to abort after carrying that load around for that time.
>> > > The other side support forcing women
>> > > too have babies. This is the side that tell all the lies.
>>
>> > Projection, I reckon.
>>
>> No, the truth. The anti-choice position is to force women to continue
>> unwanted pregnancies. They are also well known for their habit of
>> lying. Just as you did in the first part of your post.
>
> Actually, I've stated before that I would not forbid abortion. And I
> refuse to allow you to redefine 'lying'. Lying means to intentionally tell
> an untruth.
If you wouldn't forbid it, that's a start. I've been pro-choice for about
four decades by now, and I'm against abortion - if the pregnant woman
chooses to give birth. It's her choice. (My wife's been pro-choice about
as long, too - she's had one pregnancy, and the daughter from that will be
33 next month. She's pro-choice, too...and she's been pregnant three times
in the past fourteen years, and we have three grandchildren.
Robert
<k_over...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Oct 8, 3:29 pm, Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net> wrote:
>
>> > > The two sides are simple and easily understood. One side supports a
>> > > woman's right to have a child.
>>
>> > You mean to kill a child.
>>
>> No, to have a child, and only if she chooses to.
>
>I don't think abortion is necessary to exercise that right.
>
Actually once pregnant regardless the conditions at the time of
conception, the only alternative is to carry the pregnancy to term or
abort. Carrying a unwanted pregnancy to term can be life destroying.
Especially for young women in religious families.
>> No infants are
>> killed in abortion since infants cannot get an abortion since they
>> cannot become pregnant.
>
>Say what? You know what the actual argument is here. Why
>can't you just admit that you take it on faith that a fetus can't
>be considered a person?
>
Once again you lie(see below) only females at or beyond puberty can
get pregnant.
>> > > The other side support forcing women
>> > > too have babies. This is the side that tell all the lies.
>>
>> > Projection, I reckon.
>>
>> No, the truth. The anti-choice position is to force women to continue
>> unwanted pregnancies. They are also well known for their habit of
>> lying. Just as you did in the first part of your post.
>
>Actually, I've stated before that I would not forbid abortion. And I
>refuse to allow you to redefine 'lying'. Lying means to
>intentionally tell a untruth.
>
O.K. if you wish to blame being untruthful on your ignorance.
Hint pro-life people don't argue against abortion.
>Andrew Usher
Ray Fischer
>> >I don't know if there is a soul. Can you prove that there isn't?
>>
>> Can you prove that I'm not God?
>
>That hypothesis is not worthy of serious consideration.
But the equally absurd hypothesis that a soul exists from conception
is worth serious considerations?
>> > True,
>> >if there is, it would have to start at conception; that's the only
>> >time that makes sense.
>>
>> It makes no sense at all. First, you don't even know what
>> "conception" means. Second, identical twins form well AFTER
>> conception when the embryo splits into two. Does that mean that
>> one twin doesn't have a soul?
>
>That is a difficult question.
It shouldn't be.
> However, assuming that the soul is
>deposited at some later time doesn't make sense either.
I agree that the entire "argument" makes no sense.
> There
>is no moment where there is a discrete change that would
>allow us to say, now the fetus has a soul', or is conscious.
Yes, there is.
Birth.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Oct 7, 11:21 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> >'Pro-life' is no more biased a term than is 'pro-choice'. Both, I
>> >think, are useful shorthand for the two sides of this debate.
>>
>> Pro-life is actually not at all about saving lives. Quite the
>> contrary - it's more about punishing and killing people who do not
>> obey.
>
>I have never seen pro-life arguments in favor of killing anyone.
>Surely that would be ridiculous.
As ridiculous as clinic bombers and assassins?
As ridiculous as pro-lie extremists who would rather see women die in
childbirth than allow any intervention?
>> >> This is known as a "poisoning the well"
>> >> fallacy. Which means the very term they've adopted to describe
>> >> themselves involves a fallacy, and it is all downhill from there.
>>
>> >It's only a fallacy if it is used in a logical argument.
>>
>> And there is certainly a deart of logical arguments coming from the
>> pro-lie side.
>
>I haven't seen any logical arguments coming from you.
A woman does not belong to you, your cult, the state, or the fetus,
and you have no right to demand her servitude. She is not your slave.
There's your logical argument.
> The
>truth is the that pro-choice position is not based on reason,
>but on rationalisation.
The usual pro-liar denial.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Oct 7, 11:22 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Oct 7, 10:32 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>> >> >The story as written is true, I assume, or you'd come up with an
>> >> >actual argument against it.
>>
>> >> Like the fact that no rapes were covered up?
>>
>> >The headline accurately expressed the contents of the article.
>>
>> How does anybody cover up a rape which didn't occur, pro-liar?
>
>They 'covered up' a non-existent rape, true.
Just like you're covering up a non-existant murder.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net