What Unborn Children Look Like
Papa Jack
the ages when most abortions occur? Go to:
Galen Hekhuis
Far out. I know some folks who put tiny costumes on their dogs, too.
Personally, I think they have a screw loose, but they are not near as
unhinged as what you have discovered.
Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA ghek...@earthlink.net
A penny saved gathers no moss
Mizzyandrea
Want to see what unborn children look like during
the ages when most abortions occur? Go to:
since most aboritons take place well before the end of the first trimester,
I'd say they look kind of gross and surreal............
I notice you posted a link to a plastic model............
yeah......I guess it's your way of admitting that the real thing is nothing to
get emotional over
Frank Dwyer
>
> Want to see what unborn children look like during
> the ages when most abortions occur? Go to:
Wow, they look like little plastic dolls with hats.
Matt Pillsbury
> Here's PapaJack's picture of a fetus at 8 weeks, according to the
> website:
Please don't post binaries in discussion groups.
--
Matt Pillsbury "The brain is an important learning
pil...@mac.com tool, Meatwad."--ATHF
Craig Chilton
> Want to see what unborn children look like during
> the ages when most abortions occur?
"EMBRYOES" and "FETUSES," you mean?
"Unborn child" is a NONSENSE term. The equivalent of
calling a living adult person an "undead corpse."
Why do you FEAR to use HONEST and neutral terminology, PJ?
-- Craig Chilton xana...@mchsi.com
Spartakus
> On 18 Jul 2003 11:22:37 -0700, papa...@stic.net (Papa Jack) wrote:
>
> >Want to see what unborn children look like during
> >the ages when most abortions occur? Go to:
> >
> > http://www.godslittleones.com/
>
> Far out. I know some folks who put tiny costumes on their dogs, too.
> Personally, I think they have a screw loose, but they are not near as
> unhinged as what you have discovered.
"All I wanted was 'Ballerina Barbie', but what did they get me?
'MALIBU BARBIE!!!' That's NOT who I was. I was a BALLERINA.
GRACEful. BEAUtiful. I had to kill them." -- Joan Cusack, from
'Addams' Family Values', quoted from memory
Mizzyandrea
the ages when most abortions occur? Go to:
http://www.godslittleones.com/
*********************************************
Bwahaha.........that's the best reason I can think of for wanting to flush the
little slugs......... GROSS!
My kids were never THAT ugly!
Krisblake
>From: xana...@mchsi.com (Craig Chilton)
>Date: 7/21/2003 1:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3f211cef...@netnews.mchsi.com>
The obvious: It contradicts what he's propogating.
And for the record, his love for fetuses and embryoes is about as genuine as my
love for anti-choicers.
**Krisblake**
M is for Malapert
"Papa Jack" <papa...@stic.net> wrote in message
news:6f9e1b49.03071...@posting.google.com...
> Want to see what unborn children look like during
> the ages when most abortions occur? Go to:
>
> http://www.godslittleones.com/
As Galen says, far out. As the British say, barking mad.
I loved this: "We recommend dressed models for use with children for modesty
sake."
Incidentally, an embryo at 8 weeks gestation is about a third the size
depicted. And since embryos don't have genitals at that stage, how does the
artist know it's a portrait of her daughter? Then there's "Joshua William
born at 6 weeks gestation 2 p.m. June 19, 2003. [Portrait drawn] From
memory and medical research."
There's a fine line between healing closure and unhealthy obsession.
Chris
"M is for Malapert" <mi...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:a%%Sa.115712$Ph3.14829@sccrnsc04...
>
> "Papa Jack" <papa...@stic.net> wrote in message
> news:6f9e1b49.03071...@posting.google.com...
> > Want to see what unborn children look like during
> > the ages when most abortions occur? Go to:
> >
> > http://www.godslittleones.com/
>
> As Galen says, far out. As the British say, barking mad.
>
> I loved this: "We recommend dressed models for use with children for
modesty
> sake."
>
> Incidentally, an embryo at 8 weeks gestation is about a third the size
> depicted. And since embryos don't have genitals at that stage, how does
the
> artist know it's a portrait of her daughter?
Chromosomes?
Chris
"Craig Chilton" <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:3f211cef...@netnews.mchsi.com...
> On 18 Jul 2003 11:22:37 -0700,
> "Papa Jack" <papa...@stic.net> wrote:
>
> > Want to see what unborn children look like during
> > the ages when most abortions occur?
>
> "EMBRYOES" and "FETUSES," you mean?
>
> "Unborn child" is a NONSENSE term. The equivalent of
> calling a living adult person an "undead corpse."
But a corpse, by definition, is dead.
>
> Why do you FEAR to use HONEST and neutral terminology, PJ?
"Neutral" is a matter of opinion.
>
>
> -- Craig Chilton xana...@mchsi.com
Mizzyandrea
> calling a living adult person an "undead corpse."
But a corpse, by definition, is dead
***************************************
a "baby" by definition is born
Paul Anderson
>
>"Craig Chilton" <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
>news:3f211cef...@netnews.mchsi.com...
>> On 18 Jul 2003 11:22:37 -0700,
>> "Papa Jack" <papa...@stic.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Want to see what unborn children look like during
>> > the ages when most abortions occur?
>>
>> "EMBRYOES" and "FETUSES," you mean?
>>
>> "Unborn child" is a NONSENSE term. The equivalent of
>> calling a living adult person an "undead corpse."
>
>But a corpse, by definition, is dead.
A child, by definition, is born.
>> Why do you FEAR to use HONEST and neutral terminology, PJ?
>
>"Neutral" is a matter of opinion.
"Unborn Child or unborn baby. The anti-abortionists would load the
verbal dice on us by using these nouns, properly used for the already-
born infant, and applying them within the womb.... It is certainly
biological life, but life of a different order.... With the use of
`baby,' `person,' `human being,' even possibly `human life,' the
arguement is settled before you even begin it."
-- Bernard Nathanson, Aborting America, 1979
Chris
"Paul Anderson" <elco...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:3f1d3a9a....@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 22:44:20 -0700, "Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Craig Chilton" <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> >news:3f211cef...@netnews.mchsi.com...
> >> On 18 Jul 2003 11:22:37 -0700,
> >> "Papa Jack" <papa...@stic.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Want to see what unborn children look like during
> >> > the ages when most abortions occur?
> >>
> >> "EMBRYOES" and "FETUSES," you mean?
> >>
> >> "Unborn child" is a NONSENSE term. The equivalent of
> >> calling a living adult person an "undead corpse."
> >
> >But a corpse, by definition, is dead.
>
> A child, by definition, is born.
It's also UNBORN, by definition. Upon further research, I have learned that
a corpse can be either dead or alive, thus the term "undead corpse" is also
legitimate just as "unborn child" is.
Bob
>
> "Paul Anderson" <elco...@netzero.net> wrote in message
> news:3f1d3a9a....@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
>> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 22:44:20 -0700, "Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Craig Chilton" <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
>> >news:3f211cef...@netnews.mchsi.com...
>> >> On 18 Jul 2003 11:22:37 -0700,
>> >> "Papa Jack" <papa...@stic.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Want to see what unborn children look like during
>> >> > the ages when most abortions occur?
>> >>
>> >> "EMBRYOES" and "FETUSES," you mean?
>> >>
>> >> "Unborn child" is a NONSENSE term. The equivalent of
>> >> calling a living adult person an "undead corpse."
>> >
>> >But a corpse, by definition, is dead.
>>
>> A child, by definition, is born.
>
> It's also UNBORN, by definition. Upon further research, I have learned
> that a corpse can be either dead or alive, thus the term "undead
> corpse" is also legitimate just as "unborn child" is.
>
Ever heard of an oxymoron, moron?
M is for Malapert
"Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:q84Ta.25161$zy.14700@fed1read06...
> > Incidentally, an embryo at 8 weeks gestation is about a third the size
> > depicted. And since embryos don't have genitals at that stage, how does
> the
> > artist know it's a portrait of her daughter?
>
> Chromosomes?
How would she know about its chromosomes?
Chris
Maybe she checked.
>
>
Chris
"Bob" <SD> wrote in message news:Xns93C073...@153.80.109.11...
> "Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote in news:1JdTa.25227$zy.21634@fed1read06:
>
> >
> > "Paul Anderson" <elco...@netzero.net> wrote in message
> > news:3f1d3a9a....@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
> >> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 22:44:20 -0700, "Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Craig Chilton" <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:3f211cef...@netnews.mchsi.com...
> >> >> On 18 Jul 2003 11:22:37 -0700,
> >> >> "Papa Jack" <papa...@stic.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Want to see what unborn children look like during
> >> >> > the ages when most abortions occur?
> >> >>
> >> >> "EMBRYOES" and "FETUSES," you mean?
> >> >>
> >> >> "Unborn child" is a NONSENSE term. The equivalent of
> >> >> calling a living adult person an "undead corpse."
> >> >
> >> >But a corpse, by definition, is dead.
> >>
> >> A child, by definition, is born.
> >
> > It's also UNBORN, by definition. Upon further research, I have learned
> > that a corpse can be either dead or alive, thus the term "undead
> > corpse" is also legitimate just as "unborn child" is.
> >
> Ever heard of an oxymoron, moron?
Pretty funny, but I still wouldn't quit my day job. :)
Bob
>
> "Bob" <SD> wrote in message news:Xns93C073...@153.80.109.11...
>> "Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote in news:1JdTa.25227$zy.21634@fed1read06:
>>
>> >
>> > "Paul Anderson" <elco...@netzero.net> wrote in message
>> > news:3f1d3a9a....@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
>> >> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 22:44:20 -0700, "Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Craig Chilton" <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:3f211cef...@netnews.mchsi.com...
>> >> >> On 18 Jul 2003 11:22:37 -0700,
>> >> >> "Papa Jack" <papa...@stic.net> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Want to see what unborn children look like during
>> >> >> > the ages when most abortions occur?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "EMBRYOES" and "FETUSES," you mean?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Unborn child" is a NONSENSE term. The equivalent of
>> >> >> calling a living adult person an "undead corpse."
>> >> >
>> >> >But a corpse, by definition, is dead.
>> >>
>> >> A child, by definition, is born.
>> >
>> > It's also UNBORN, by definition. Upon further research, I have
learned
>> > that a corpse can be either dead or alive, thus the term "undead
>> > corpse" is also legitimate just as "unborn child" is.
>> >
>> Ever heard of an oxymoron, moron?
>
> Pretty funny, but I still wouldn't quit my day job. :)
>
It wasn't meant to be funny.
Papa Jack
>> "Paul Anderson" <elco...@netzero.net> wrote in message
>> news:3f1d3a9a....@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
>>>>"Craig Chilton" <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>>> "Papa Jack" <papa...@stic.net> wrote:
======================================================================
[snip]
>>>>
>>>> "Unborn child" is a NONSENSE term. The equivalent of
>>>> calling a living adult person an "undead corpse."
======================================================================
>>> Chris wrote:
>>> But a corpse, by definition, is dead.
======================================================================
>> El Coyote wrote:
>> A child, by definition, is born.
======================================================================
> Chris wrote:
> It's also UNBORN, by definition. Upon further research,
> I have learned that a corpse can be either dead or alive,
> thus the term "undead corpse" is also legitimate just as
> "unborn child" is.
======================================================================
Papa Jack quoted, again:
CHILD
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed., 1990)
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/abtrbng/terms.htm
Fetus. An UNBORN CHILD....
UNBORN CHILD. The individual human life in existence
and developing prior to birth. A child not yet born
at the happening of an event....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nolo Law Dictionary
child
(1) A son or daughter of any age, sometimes
including biological offspring, UNBORN CHILDREN,
adopted children, stepchildren, foster children
and children born outside of marriage....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
merriam-Webster on-line dictionary:
http://www.m-w.com/netdict.htm
child
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English cild;
akin to Gothic kilthei womb, and perhaps
to Sanskrit jathara belly
1 a : an UNBORN or recently born person
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oxford English Dictionary
CHILD: 1. a. The UNBORN or newly born human being;
fetus, infant. App. originally always used in
relation to the mother as the ‘fruit of the womb'.
When the application was subsequently extended, the
primitive sense was often expressed by babe, baby,
infant; but ‘child' is still the proper term, and
retained in phrases, as ‘with child', ‘to have a
child', ‘child-birth', the verb to child, etc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language:
Fourth Edition. 2000.
http://www.bartleby.com/61/13/C0291300.html
child
[...]
2a. An UNBORN infant; a FETUS....
IDIOM:
with child Pregnant.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dictionary.Com
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=child
child (chld)
1. A person between birth and puberty.
2. a.An UNBORN infant; a FETUS.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chris
"Bob" <SD> wrote in message news:Xns93C14B...@153.80.109.11...
> "Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote in news:a9oTa.26213$zy.5209@fed1read06:
>
> >
> > "Bob" <SD> wrote in message news:Xns93C073...@153.80.109.11...
> >> "Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote in news:1JdTa.25227$zy.21634@fed1read06:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "Paul Anderson" <elco...@netzero.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:3f1d3a9a....@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
> >> >> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 22:44:20 -0700, "Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Craig Chilton" <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:3f211cef...@netnews.mchsi.com...
> >> >> >> On 18 Jul 2003 11:22:37 -0700,
> >> >> >> "Papa Jack" <papa...@stic.net> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Want to see what unborn children look like during
> >> >> >> > the ages when most abortions occur?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "EMBRYOES" and "FETUSES," you mean?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Unborn child" is a NONSENSE term. The equivalent of
> >> >> >> calling a living adult person an "undead corpse."
> >> >> >
> >> >> >But a corpse, by definition, is dead.
> >> >>
> >> >> A child, by definition, is born.
> >> >
> >> > It's also UNBORN, by definition. Upon further research, I have
> learned
> >> > that a corpse can be either dead or alive, thus the term "undead
> >> > corpse" is also legitimate just as "unborn child" is.
> >> >
> >> Ever heard of an oxymoron, moron?
> >
> > Pretty funny, but I still wouldn't quit my day job. :)
> >
> It wasn't meant to be funny.
Oh..................... ok.
Bob
But I will take your recommendation and keep my day job anyway.
Pat Winstanley
papa...@stic.net says...
>
> Fetus. An UNBORN CHILD....
>
Unborn: non-existent.
Chris
"Pat Winstanley" <wallopc...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1989c4082...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
Unborn: not yet delivered; still EXISTING in the mother's womb.
Mizzyandrea
there is no "mother" until there is a birth, pus licker
n...@spam.com
I agree with Papa Jack and:
1) Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed., 1990
2) Nolo Law Dictionary
3) merriam-Webster online dictionary
4) Oxford English Dictionary
5) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth
Edition. 2000.
6) Dictionary.Com
Lemme guess: these are "appeal to authority" fallacies.
HAHAHAHAHA-HOHOHOHOHO
> relation to the mother as the ?fruit of the womb'.
> When the application was subsequently extended, the
> primitive sense was often expressed by babe, baby,
> infant; but ?child' is still the proper term, and
> retained in phrases, as ?with child', ?to have a
> child', ?child-birth', the verb to child, etc.
MyTwoAngels
> Pat Winstanley wrote:
> > In article <6f9e1b49.03072...@posting.google.com>,
> > papa...@stic.net says...
> >
> >> Fetus. An UNBORN CHILD....
> >>
> >
> >
> > Unborn: non-existent.
>
> I agree with Papa Jack
You also defend other bigots, such as Osprey, Chris, and Marie.
Craig Chilton
>> "Papa Jack" <papa...@stic.net> wrote:
>>> Want to see what unborn children look like during
>>> the ages when most abortions occur?
>> "EMBRYOES" and "FETUSES," you mean?
>>
>> "Unborn child" is a NONSENSE term. The equivalent of
>> calling a living adult person an "undead corpse."
>>
>> Why do you FEAR to use HONEST and neutral terminology, PJ?
> The obvious: It contradicts what he's propagating.
>
> And for the record, his love for fetuses and embryoes is about
> as genuine as my love for Anti-Choicers.
>
>**Krisblake**
Very true. He's a total hypocrite, and not especially bright.
(Which sorta goes right along with BEING a hypocrite.) And thus
is VERY easy to corner in a debate. Which I've done to him so
thoroughly in the past, he went into OSTRICH mode with me.
And THAT is just funnier than hell !!
-- Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com>
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
The only things that such hyperconservative louts as RRR cultists,
homophobes, and Anti-Choicers (usually the SAME people) lack are:
-- Compassion
-- Common sense
-- Intelligence
-- Fairness
-- Capability to NOT be busybodies
-- Tolerance
-- Acceptance of the rights of those with whom they disagree
Otherwise, there's not TOO much else wrong with them.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Craig Chilton
>>> Want to see what unborn children look like during
>>> the ages when most abortions occur?
>> "EMBRYOES" and "FETUSES," you mean?
>>
>> "Unborn child" is a NONSENSE term. The equivalent of
>> calling a living adult person an "undead corpse."
> But a corpse, by definition, is dead.
Apples and oranges. A living adult is NOT YET a corpse, and
a fetus is NOT YET a child.
You studied long and hard at the Red Herring Academy,
didn't you? But probably got straight *Fs*, because dragging red
herrings around is ineffective when it's done so OBVIOUSLY.
>> Why do you FEAR to use HONEST and neutral terminology, PJ?
> "Neutral" is a matter of opinion.
There's NOTHING emotion-eliciting about using HONEST terminology.
And with NO HOPE of eliciting a supportive emotional response from
the ignorant and the gullible, Anti-Choicers would get NOWHERE by using
HONEST and NEUTRAL terms. They therefore are transparent and lame
as hell!
Craig Chilton
"Papa Jack" <papa...@stic.net> wrote:
> Chris <re...@juno.com> wrote:
>> Paul Anderson <elco...@netzero.net> wrote:
>>> Chris <re...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>>> "Papa Jack" <papa...@stic.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Want to see what unborn children look like during
>>>>>> the ages when most abortions occur?
>>>>> "EMBRYOES" and "FETUSES," you mean?
>>>>>
>>>>> "Unborn child" is a NONSENSE term. The equivalent
>>>>> of calling a living adult person an "undead corpse."
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you FEAR to use HONEST and neutral
>>>>> terminology, PJ?
Well? Why?
>>>> But a corpse, by definition, is dead.
>>> A child, by definition, is born.
> CHILD
>
> Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed., 1990)
<dictionary bullcrap snipped>
We all KNOW **why** you play semantic word-games, RATHER
than emplying the neiutral and honest terms, "embryo' and "fetus," PJ.
With NO HOPE of eliciting emotional responses and support for
the profoundly-ignorant and the profoundly-gullible via their emplyment
of semantic word-games to that end, Anti-Choicers get NOWHERE.
It is FASCINATING to watch Anti-Choicers wriggle and writhe as they
DUCK that which DOOMS their goals: There are NO FACTS that support
their loathesome and hateful agenda against women.
NONE, whatsoever.
Making them the bigest laughingstock America has harbored since
the segregationists.
For all the SAME reasons.
Craig Chilton
Chris <re...@juno.com> wrote:
> Pat Winstanley <wallopc...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
[ ... ]
>> Unborn: non-existent.
> Unborn: not yet delivered; still EXISTING in the mother's womb.
AS an embryo or fetus, it exists.
But calling either of those entities an "unborn" ANYTHING as as
ludicrous as calling ANY entity that is *alive*, "undead," would be.
It's funnier than hell watching idiotic Anti-Choicers running around
AVOIDING using the *honest* and *neutral* terms in ther desperation
to play semantic-word-games which are OBVIOUSLY designed
to elicit emotional support from the handful of people who would
be PROFOUNDLY ignorant and/or gullible enough to fall for them.
ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!
Chris
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 22:44:20 -0700,
> Chris <re...@juno.com> wrote:
> > Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >> "Papa Jack" <papa...@stic.net> wrote:
>
> >>> Want to see what unborn children look like during
> >>> the ages when most abortions occur?
>
> >> "EMBRYOES" and "FETUSES," you mean?
> >>
> >> "Unborn child" is a NONSENSE term. The equivalent of
> >> calling a living adult person an "undead corpse."
>
> > But a corpse, by definition, is dead.
>
> Apples and oranges. A living adult is NOT YET a corpse, and
> a fetus is NOT YET a child.
>
> You studied long and hard at the Red Herring Academy,
> didn't you?
No, but I studied long and hard in the dictionary, and since learned that a
corpse can be either dead or ALIVE. Thus, a living adult can be a corpse
just as much as a fetus can be a child.
Mizzyandrea
the ignorant and the gullible, Anti-Choicers would get NOWHERE by using
HONEST and NEUTRAL terms. They therefore are transparent and lame
as hell!
embryo and fetus aren't "honest" or "neutral"........they are scientifically
correct.......... just as "acorn" is appropriate while "tiny oak tree" is as
silly as "unborn child"......
These ignorant cocksuckers don't know their asses from the side of a
motherfucking barn.
The minute I see "unborn" bullshit, I know it's propaganda coming from a
dickless bucket of pus control freak who cannot stand the idea of people
living by their own rules.
Mizzyandrea
the ages when most abortions occur?
I want to see a uterus big enough to fit a "child"...........
the "unborn" are embryos and fetuses.
I'm sorry you are too fucking ignorant to know the correct terms.
Sneechres
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:48:59 -0700,
> Chris <re...@juno.com> wrote:
> > Pat Winstanley <wallopc...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> [ ... ]
>
> >> Unborn: non-existent.
>
> > Unborn: not yet delivered; still EXISTING in the mother's womb.
>
> AS an embryo or fetus, it exists.
Well, you exist too. Maybe if we called you something different you'd
become something different. Something disposable, even. Craig, I dub
thee the Hefty Cinch-Sack of Usenet.
> But calling either of those entities an "unborn" ANYTHING as as
> ludicrous as calling ANY entity that is *alive*, "undead," would be.
That doesn't make sense. Either something is alive or it is not. And
fetuses are alive. And either they are born or not. Fetuses are not.
Therefore they unborn.
> It's funnier than hell watching idiotic Anti-Choicers running around
> AVOIDING using the *honest* and *neutral* terms
You mean like "loon," "bitch," "asshole" etc, all terms which you have
used on other people?
in ther desperation
> to play semantic-word-games
Semantic word games? You mean like calling the unborn by certain
dehumanizing terms merely to justify killing them? Like that?
> which are OBVIOUSLY designed
> to elicit emotional support
Hm, you mean like your attempts to elicit sympathy for the "hardships"
of pregnant women whose "lives could be put back on track" and thus
not "relegated to second class citizen status" etc etc etc?
Wow, my heart bleeds for them.
What a hypocrite you are, Cinch-Sack.
--S
Mizzyandrea
of pregnant women whose "lives could be put back on track" and thus
not "relegated to second class citizen status" etc etc etc?
fuck you cocksucker woman-hating pile of anal crust!.......
Just think of all the women who might have found a cure for AIDS or Cancer had
they not quit school to have a kid!
All the whining you do over embryos........
I guess it's because you are obviously the intellectual peer of a fucking
embryo.
n...@spam.com
> On 23 Jul 2003 13:38:23 -0700,
> "Papa Jack" <papa...@stic.net> wrote:
>
>> Chris <re...@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Paul Anderson <elco...@netzero.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Chris <re...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Papa Jack" <papa...@stic.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>
>
>>>>>>> Want to see what unborn children look like during
>>>>>>>the ages when most abortions occur?
>>>>>>
>
>>>>>> "EMBRYOES" and "FETUSES," you mean?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Unborn child" is a NONSENSE term. The equivalent
>>>>>>of calling a living adult person an "undead corpse."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you FEAR to use HONEST and neutral
>>>>>>terminology, PJ?
>>>>>
>
> Well? Why?
>
>
>>>>> But a corpse, by definition, is dead.
>>>>
>
>>>> A child, by definition, is born.
>>>
>
>> CHILD
>>
>> Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed., 1990)
>
>
> <dictionary bullcrap snipped>
>
> We all KNOW **why** you play semantic word-games, RATHER
> than emplying the neiutral and honest terms, "embryo' and "fetus," PJ.
His cites included the word fetus !
Btw, 'fetus' is a neutral term for unborn children like 'homo sapien' is
a neutral term for human beings....
> ======================================================================
> Papa Jack quoted, again:
> CHILD
>
> Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed., 1990)
>
> relation to the mother as the ?fruit of the womb'.
> When the application was subsequently extended, the
> primitive sense was often expressed by babe, baby,
> infant; but ?child' is still the proper term, and
> retained in phrases, as ?with child', ?to have a
> child', ?child-birth', the verb to child, etc.
n...@spam.com
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 22:44:20 -0700,
> Chris <re...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Papa Jack" <papa...@stic.net> wrote:
>>
>
>>>> Want to see what unborn children look like during
>>>>the ages when most abortions occur?
>>>
>
>>> "EMBRYOES" and "FETUSES," you mean?
>>>
>>> "Unborn child" is a NONSENSE term. The equivalent of
>>>calling a living adult person an "undead corpse."
>>
>
>> But a corpse, by definition, is dead.
>
>
> Apples and oranges. A living adult is NOT YET a corpse, and
> a fetus is NOT YET a child.
"unborn child" because it's a child not yet born. Nothing to do with it
not being a child.
Paul Anderson
....
>"unborn child" because it's a child not yet born. Nothing to do with it
>not being a child.
Dictionary.com:
4 entries found for unborn.
j.
Not yet born: an unborn child.
Not yet appeared; future: unborn inventions.
-- The American Heritage® Dictionary
Not born; no yet brought into life; being still to appear; future.
See future sons, and daughters yet unborn. --Pope.
-- Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary
not yet brought into existence; "unborn generations" [ant: born]
-- WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
As anyone who is honest can see -- the unborn do not exist in the
present. We speak of unborn generations -- our grand children and
great grand children and all of the unborn generations to follow. An
"unborn child" refers to an entity that will appear in the future.
When we speak of a fetus being an unborn child we are speaking of what
it will (actually *may*) become in the future.
I doubt that I shall ever find an honest Pro-Lifer.
Chris
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 00:32:44 +0000, n...@spam.com wrote:
>
> ....
>
> >"unborn child" because it's a child not yet born. Nothing to do with it
> >not being a child.
>
> Dictionary.com:
> 4 entries found for unborn.
> j.
> Not yet born: an unborn child.
> Not yet appeared; future: unborn inventions.
> -- The American Heritage® Dictionary
>
> Not born; no yet brought into life; being still to appear; future.
> See future sons, and daughters yet unborn. --Pope.
> -- Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary
>
> not yet brought into existence; "unborn generations" [ant: born]
> -- WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
>
> As anyone who is honest can see -- the unborn do not exist in the
> present. We speak of unborn generations -- our grand children and
> great grand children and all of the unborn generations to follow. An
> "unborn child" refers to an entity that will appear in the future.
Such entity being a "child" qualified by "not yet born" (still existing in
the mother's womb).
> When we speak of a fetus being an unborn child we are speaking of what
> it will (actually *may*) become in the future.
"Being" is contrary to "may/will become".
Mizzyandrea
the mother's womb)
there's no child until there's a birth.......
Craig Chilton
[ ... ]
>>>> Unborn: non-existent.
>>> Unborn: not yet delivered; still EXISTING in the mother's womb.
>> AS an embryo or fetus, it exists.
> Well, you exist too. Maybe if we called you something different you'd
> become something different. Something disposable, even. Craig, I dub
> thee the Hefty Cinch-Sack of Usenet.
Typical NONSENSE spewed by a person who has NO actual FACTS
to bring to bear? Know something? in decades, i have NEVER YET seen
an actual FACT that supports the Anti-Choice stance. Rhetoric and lies
are ALL that they can brng to bear.
>> But calling either of those entities an "unborn" ANYTHING as as
>> ludicrous as calling ANY entity that is *alive*, "undead," would be.
> That doesn't make sense. Either something is alive or it is not. And
> fetuses are alive. And either they are born or not. Fetuses are not.
> Therefore they unborn.
By that definition, so are gametes. So let's see you get out there
and crusdae for the QUADRILLION of THOSE potential people that are
willfully aborted daily, worldwide. (But my bet is that you'll continue
simply to be a hypocrite, instead.)
>> It's funnier than hell watching idiotic Anti-Choicers running around
>> AVOIDING using the *honest* and *neutral* terms
> You mean like "loon," "bitch," "asshole" etc, all terms which you have
> used on other people?
I seldom employ "asshole," and NEVER "bitch." (I don't believe in
insulting dogs.) "Loon," in its definition that fits a person who's a
wacko, is an ACCURATE descriptor for ALL who support the loathesome
and mindless agendas of homophobia, Anti-Choice, and other darlings of
the RRR cult.
>> ... in ther desperation to play semantic-word-games
> Semantic word games? You mean like calling [g/z/e/fs] by certain
> dehumanizing terms...
It's "dehumanising" to be ACCURATE???
ROTFL!!!!!
With arguments like that, it's no wonder the Anti-Choicers are
America's National Laughingstock!
> ...merely to justify killing them?
Putting an end to WORTHLESS human entities -- which is what
all of those ARE, when **unwanted** by a host having NO desire to
gestate them -- requires NO more justification than does stepping on an
ant. I remind you of the QUADRILLION potential people that the
Anti-Choicers so obviously IGNORE.
>> ...which are OBVIOUSLY designed to elicit emotional support
>> from the handful of people who would be PROFOUNDLY ignorant
>> and/or gullible enough to fall for them.
>>
>> ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Hm, you mean like your attempts to elicit sympathy for the "hardships"
> of pregnant women whose "lives could be put back on track" and thus
> not "relegated to second class citizen status" etc etc etc?
No more needs to be done to defend REAL people than to simply present
the FACTS. Only the bone-ignorant and the hateful still seek to impose
hardship after learning those.
> Wow, my heart bleeds for them.
The ONLY thing *your8 heart bleeds for are entities which you seek
to use as leverage to make the lives of millions of people miserable.
That's a pathetic as it GETS!
-- Craig Chilton xana...@mchsi.com
Craig Chilton
> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> Chris <re...@juno.com> wrote:
>>> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>> "Papa Jack" <papa...@stic.net> wrote:
>>>>> Want to see what unborn children look like during
>>>>> the ages when most abortions occur?
>>>> "EMBRYOES" and "FETUSES," you mean?
>>>>
>>>> "Unborn child" is a NONSENSE term. The equivalent of
>>>> calling a living adult person an "undead corpse."
>>> But a corpse, by definition, is dead.
>> Apples and oranges. A living adult is NOT YET a corpse, and
>> a fetus is NOT YET a child.
>>
>> You studied long and hard at the Red Herring Academy,
>> didn't you?
> No, but I studied long and hard in the dictionary, and since learned that a
> corpse can be either dead or ALIVE. Thus, a living adult can be a corpse
> just as much as a fetus can be a child.
LOL!!!!!!
If you have a dictionary that says that a corpse can be alive, that
explains a LOT about the arguments you've been making in these groups!
>> But probably got straight *Fs*, because dragging red
>> herrings around is ineffective when it's done so OBVIOUSLY.
>>>> Why do you FEAR to use HONEST and neutral terminology, PJ?
>>> "Neutral" is a matter of opinion.
>> There's NOTHING emotion-eliciting about using HONEST terminology.
>>
>> And with NO HOPE of eliciting a supportive emotional response from
>> the ignorant and the gullible, Anti-Choicers would get NOWHERE by using
>> HONEST and NEUTRAL terms. They therefore are transparent and lame
>> as hell!
>>
>>
>> -- Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com>
>>
>> ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
>> The only things that such hyperconservative louts as RRR cultists,
>> homophobes, and Anti-Choicers (usually the SAME people) lack are:
>>
>> -- Compassion
>> -- Common sense
>> -- Intelligence
>> -- Fairness
>> -- Capability to NOT be busybodies
>> -- Tolerance
>> -- Acceptance of the rights of those with whom they disagree
>>
>> Otherwise, there's not TOO much else wrong with them.
>>
>> ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
-- Craig Chilton xana...@mchsi.com
Craig Chilton
> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> Chris <re...@juno.com> wrote:
>>> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>> "Papa Jack" <papa...@stic.net> wrote:
>>>>> Want to see what unborn children look like during
>>>>> the ages when most abortions occur?
>>>> "EMBRYOES" and "FETUSES," you mean?
>>>>
>>>> "Unborn child" is a NONSENSE term. The equivalent of
>>>>calling a living adult person an "undead corpse."
>>> But a corpse, by definition, is dead.
>> Apples and oranges. A living adult is NOT YET a corpse, and
>> a fetus is NOT YET a child.
> "Unborn child" because it's a child not yet born. Nothing to do
> with it not being a child.
As Mizzyandrea just pointed out, calling a human entity in
the reproductive process an "unborn child" is just as ridiculous
as it would be to call an acorn a "little oak tree." And when
Anti-Choicers employ such terminology, it ALWAYS is a
transparently-obvious attempt on their part to elicit sympathy
from the handful of bone-ignorant or profoundly-gullible people
who could be taken in by it.
>> You studied long and hard at the Red Herring Academy,
>> didn't you? But probably got straight *Fs*, because dragging red
>> herrings around is ineffective when it's done so OBVIOUSLY.
>>>> Why do you FEAR to use HONEST and neutral terminology, PJ?
>>> "Neutral" is a matter of opinion.
>> There's NOTHING emotion-eliciting about using HONEST terminology.
>>
>> And with NO HOPE of eliciting a supportive emotional response from
>> the ignorant and the gullible, Anti-Choicers would get NOWHERE by using
>> HONEST and NEUTRAL terms. They therefore are transparent and lame
>> as hell!
>>
>> -- Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com>
>>
>> ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
>> The only things that such hyperconservative louts as RRR cultists,
>> homophobes, and Anti-Choicers (usually the SAME people) lack are:
>>
>> -- Compassion
>> -- Common sense
>> -- Intelligence
>> -- Fairness
>> -- Capability to NOT be busybodies
>> -- Tolerance
>> -- Acceptance of the rights of those with whom they disagree
>>
>> Otherwise, there's not TOO much else wrong with them.
>>
>> ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
-- Craig Chilton xana...@mchsi.com
Chris
Therefore it's an "honest" a "NEUTRAL" term.
Chris
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 22:53:09 -0700,
> Chris <re...@juno.com> wrote:
> > Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >> Chris <re...@juno.com> wrote:
> >>> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >>>> "Papa Jack" <papa...@stic.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Want to see what unborn children look like during
> >>>>> the ages when most abortions occur?
>
> >>>> "EMBRYOES" and "FETUSES," you mean?
> >>>>
> >>>> "Unborn child" is a NONSENSE term. The equivalent of
> >>>> calling a living adult person an "undead corpse."
>
> >>> But a corpse, by definition, is dead.
>
> >> Apples and oranges. A living adult is NOT YET a corpse, and
> >> a fetus is NOT YET a child.
> >>
> >> You studied long and hard at the Red Herring Academy,
> >> didn't you?
>
> > No, but I studied long and hard in the dictionary, and since learned
that a
> > corpse can be either dead or ALIVE. Thus, a living adult can be a corpse
> > just as much as a fetus can be a child.
>
> LOL!!!!!!
>
> If you have a dictionary that says that a corpse can be alive, that
> explains a LOT about the arguments you've been making in these groups!
1. A human body in general, whether living or dead;
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=corpse
Ray Fischer
>Well, you exist too. Maybe if we called you something different you'd
>become something different. Something disposable, even.
Yeah, maybe you could call him "pregnant".
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>"Craig Chilton" <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
>> Chris <re...@juno.com> wrote:
> >> You studied long and hard at the Red Herring Academy,
>> >> didn't you?
>>
>> > No, but I studied long and hard in the dictionary, and since learned that a
>> > corpse can be either dead or ALIVE. Thus, a living adult can be a corpse
>> > just as much as a fetus can be a child.
>>
>> LOL!!!!!!
>>
>> If you have a dictionary that says that a corpse can be alive, that
>> explains a LOT about the arguments you've been making in these groups!
>
>1. A human body in general, whether living or dead;
>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=corpse
Odd. When I enter that URL what I get is:
A dead body, especially the dead body of a human.
and the definition you cited is marked as being obsolete.
One might think that you were being rather stupidly dishonest.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
n...@spam.com
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 00:32:44 +0000,
> Anonymous Loser <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>
>> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Chris <re...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Papa Jack" <papa...@stic.net> wrote:
>>>>
>
>
>>>>>> Want to see what unborn children look like during
>>>>>>the ages when most abortions occur?
>>>>>
>
>>>>> "EMBRYOES" and "FETUSES," you mean?
>>>>>
>>>>> "Unborn child" is a NONSENSE term. The equivalent of
>>>>>calling a living adult person an "undead corpse."
>>>>
>
>>>> But a corpse, by definition, is dead.
>>>
>
>>> Apples and oranges. A living adult is NOT YET a corpse, and
>>>a fetus is NOT YET a child.
>>
>
>> "Unborn child" because it's a child not yet born. Nothing to do
>>with it not being a child.
>
>
> As Mizzyandrea just pointed out, calling a human entity in
> the reproductive process an "unborn child" is just as ridiculous
> as it would be to call an acorn a "little oak tree."
We're talking about trees or seeds. An unborn child is not a seed.
GAMETES are the "seeds"....
> And when
> Anti-Choicers employ such terminology, it ALWAYS is a
> transparently-obvious attempt on their part to elicit sympathy
> from the handful of bone-ignorant or profoundly-gullible people
> who could be taken in by it.
If they were it would transparently obvious and you wouldn't have to say
so. Could it be you're full of crap?
Sneechres
> On 27 Jul 2003 23:10:17 -0700,
> "Sneechres" <snee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >> Chris <re...@juno.com> wrote:
> >>> Pat Winstanley <wallopc...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> >>>> Unborn: non-existent.
>
> >>> Unborn: not yet delivered; still EXISTING in the mother's womb.
>
> >> AS an embryo or fetus, it exists.
>
> > Well, you exist too. Maybe if we called you something different you'd
> > become something different. Something disposable, even. Craig, I dub
> > thee the Hefty Cinch-Sack of Usenet.
>
> Typical NONSENSE spewed by a person who has NO actual FACTS
> to bring to bear?
You're not interested in facts, that has been repeatedly demonstrated.
> Know something?
Yep. At least, I like to think so.
in decades, i have NEVER YET seen
> an actual FACT that supports the Anti-Choice stance.
That's because you wouldn't recognize a fact if you met one. And if
you did, you'd deny it and throw up three more ideological
fabrications of your own addled mind.
> >> But calling either of those entities an "unborn" ANYTHING as as
> >> ludicrous as calling ANY entity that is *alive*, "undead," would be.
>
> > That doesn't make sense. Either something is alive or it is not. And
> > fetuses are alive. And either they are born or not. Fetuses are not.
> > Therefore they unborn.
>
> By that definition, so are gametes.
Yep. Gee, you might could name a hundred things that are not really
ever "born." Makes the idea that birth is some profound event pretty
fricking stupid.
> So let's see you get out there
> and crusdae for the QUADRILLION of THOSE potential people that are
> willfully aborted daily, worldwide.
They aren't potential people. There's no such thing as a "potential
person." That's a nonsense idea. So what would a gamete crusade
accomplish, exactly, considering that the human body mass produces
them and spontaneously disposes of them on its own, regardless of
whether one likes it or not?
> >> It's funnier than hell watching idiotic Anti-Choicers running around
> >> AVOIDING using the *honest* and *neutral* terms
>
> > You mean like "loon," "bitch," "asshole" etc, all terms which you have
> > used on other people?
>
> I seldom employ "asshole,"
You have before. So is that what you are talking about? Is that an
honest and neutral term to use?
> and NEVER "bitch."
Liar. You used that term in reference to yours truly. How quickly
you forget.
3e0d0fa3....@netnews.mchsi.com
You know, short-term memory loss can be caused by a number of mental
illnesses. You may want to check that.
> (I don't believe in
> insulting dogs.)
Oh, so now calling someone a "dog" is a neutral and honest term?
How are you defining neutral and honest?
> "Loon," in its definition that fits a person who's a
> wacko,
Neither loon nor wacko are neutral or honest terms. They are
insulting slang, period.
> >> ... in ther desperation to play semantic-word-games
>
> > Semantic word games? You mean like calling the unborn by certain
> > dehumanizing terms...
>
> It's "dehumanising" to be ACCURATE???
It's dehumanizing to claim that fetuses are not living human beings
(on par with yourself), which it seems you routinely do. You can't
even bring yourself to call them "the unborn" which is generally
accepted both in society and in the medical field because it's true
and accurate.
> > ...merely to justify killing them?
>
> Putting an end to WORTHLESS human entities --
Is "worthless" a neutral term? How accurate is it?
Sounds like a semantic word game to me. So is "human entity," a
statement with virtually no political meaning save that which you are
obviously trying to imply.
<clip>
> >> ...which are OBVIOUSLY designed to elicit emotional support
> >> from the handful of people who would be PROFOUNDLY ignorant
> >> and/or gullible enough to fall for them.
> >>
> >> ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > Hm, you mean like your attempts to elicit sympathy for the "hardships"
> > of pregnant women whose "lives could be put back on track" and thus
> > not "relegated to second class citizen status" etc etc etc?
>
> No more needs to be done to defend REAL people than to simply present
> the FACTS.
So why the hysteria?
> Only the bone-ignorant and the hateful still seek to impose
> hardship after learning those.
Again, so why the hysteria?
> > Wow, my heart bleeds for them.
>
> The ONLY thing *your8 heart bleeds for are entities which you seek
> to use as leverage to make the lives of millions of people miserable.
That's interesting coming from someone who's main interest in life is
that women have empty wombs and empty wallets.
Being pro-choice means supporting adoption, too, Craig.
--S
Craig Chilton
> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> "Sneechres" <snee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>> Chris <re...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>>> Pat Winstanley <wallopc...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
[ ... ]
>>>>>> Unborn: non-existent.
>>>>> Unborn: not yet delivered; still EXISTING in the mother's womb.
>>>> AS an embryo or fetus, it exists.
>>> Well, you exist too. Maybe if we called you something different you'd
>>> become something different. Something disposable, even. Craig, I dub
>>> thee the Hefty Cinch-Sack of Usenet.
>> Typical NONSENSE spewed by a person who has NO actual FACTS
>> to bring to bear?
> You're not interested in facts, that has been repeatedly demonstrated.
Wrong. Since I never lie in my posts, that has NEVER been
demonstrated, nor is it possible to do so. YOU, on the other hand, lie
flagrantly and with great frequency, as you just now did TWICE, in one
sentence... by (1) claiming that I'm not interested in facts, and by (2)
claiming that your false claim in #1 "has been demonstrated."
I have OFTEN included the FACT-filled SIG, below, in my posts. And
since the facts it contains ARE facts, NO Anti-Choice pathetic loser has
EVER disproven any of them.
>> Know something?
> Yep. At least, I like to think so.
Whatever it is, it has NOTHING to do with common sense or
compassion toward REAL people with respect to the remedy of
abortion.
>> Iin decades, I have NEVER YET seen an actual FACT that
>> supports the Anti-Choice stance.
>
> That's because you wouldn't recognize a fact if you met one.
> And if you did, you'd deny it and throw up three more ideological
> fabrications of your own addled mind.
READERS: Isn't it INTERESTING that she had the perfect opportunity
here to prove me wrong (had that been possible), simply by presenting ONE
SINGLE FACT that supports the stance of the Anti-Choicers? ...But
INSTEAD, the best she could do was say the above whining, factless tripe.
Typical of ALL Anti-Choicers when confronted with the challenge to defend
their agenda with FACTS. They can't do it! NO facts even exist that
support the stance of the Anti-Choicers.
>>>> But calling either of those entities an "unborn" ANYTHING as as
>>>> ludicrous as calling ANY entity that is *alive*, "undead," would be.
>>> That doesn't make sense. Either something is alive or it is not. And
>>> fetuses are alive. And either they are born or not. Fetuses are not.
>>> Therefore they unborn.
>> By that definition, so are gametes.
> Yep. Gee, you might could name a hundred things that are not really
> ever "born." Makes the idea that birth is some profound event pretty
> fricking stupid.
There is NOTHING profound about birth UNLESS the woman *giving* birth
WANTS to. Unless, of course, one considers the case of an UNwanted birth
to be the profound *disaster* that it frequently is.
>> So let's see you get out there and crusade for the QUADRILLION
>> of THOSE potential people that are willfully aborted daily, worldwide.
> They aren't potential people. There's no such thing as a "potential
> person." That's a nonsense idea.
Wrong again. PEOPLE don't exist as such until BIRTH. Regarding
a gamete, an embryo, or a fetus to be a "person" is as laughable and
idiotic as it gets!
G/z/e/fs are quite LITERALLY **potential** people, and that is ALL
that ALL of them are, as long as they exist in any of those stages. No
amount of whining that you and your ilk do will change that one iota.
> So what would a gamete crusade accomplish, exactly, considering
> that the human body mass produces them and spontaneously disposes
> of them on its own, regardless of whether one likes it or not?
Nothing one whit more useful than it would to crusade for the z/e/f
stages, which ALSO are spontaneously disposed of in about 70% of cases,
and which count for NOTHING until (and unless) BORN. (See SIG.)
Just further evidence of the LUDICROUSNESS of being ANTI-Choice.
>>>> It's funnier than hell watching idiotic Anti-Choicers running around
>>>> AVOIDING using the *honest* and *neutral* terms
>>> You mean like "loon," "bitch," "asshole" etc, all terms which you have
>>> used on other people?
>> I seldom employ "asshole,"
> You have before. So is that what you are talking about? Is that an
> honest and neutral term to use?
>> ...and NEVER "bitch."
> Liar. You used that term in reference to yours truly. How quickly
> you forget.
>
> 3e0d0fa3....@netnews.mchsi.com
I'll admit that refering to a person as a "bitchy fruitcake of a
troll" comes CLOSE to your criteria, but misses the mark. Such
an adjective does not measure up to being the same as calling a
person a "bitch" (noun). Nice TRY, though.
<tripe-snip>
>> (I don't believe in insulting dogs.)
> Oh, so now calling someone a "dog" is a neutral and
> honest term?
You know, when i wrote that, I sorta figured you'd misintertret it.
You never HAVE been any good at recognizing anything that's
abstract. Of course, if you COULD, you'd probably be intelligent
enough **not** to even BE an Anti-Choicer.
I was to the fact that if I WERE to call a bigoted louse a "bitch,"
then THAT would consititute an insult to all female dogs.
> How are you defining neutral and honest?
One hell of a lot better thn YOU are ever likely to be.
>> "Loon," in its definition that fits a person who's a wacko, is an
>> ACCURATE descriptor for ALL who support the loathesome
>> and mindless agendas of homophobia, Anti-Choice, and other
>> darlings of the RRR cult.
> Neither loon nor wacko are neutral or honest terms. They are
> insulting slang, period.
Slang, they may be. But when employed as ACCURATE descriptors;
i.e., for a person who is deranged enought to seek to impose immense
hardship upon millions of people for NO good reason... as all ANTI-
Choicers do... then there's nothing "insulting" about it. It's simply a
statement of fact, slang or no slang.
>>>> ... in their desperation to play semantic-word-games...
>>> Semantic word games? You mean like calling the unborn by certain
>>> dehumanizing terms...
>> It's "dehumanising" to be ACCURATE???
>>
>> ROTFL!!!!!
>>
>> With arguments like that, it's no wonder the Anti-Choicers are
>> America's National Laughingstock!
> It's dehumanizing to claim that fetuses are not living human beings...
Wrong. Since they are absolutely NOT human beings, except in the
desperate imaginations of Anti-Choicer in their wishful and inaccurate
thinking.
> (on par with yourself), which it seems you routinely do.
I routinely deal in FACTS. A concept that obviously is ALIEN to you,
and all of your hateful ilk.
> You can't even bring yourself to call them "the unborn" ...
Right. Any more than I can bring myself to refer to living adults
as being "undead." it would be JUST as absurd and nonsensical.
> ...which is generally accepted both in society and in the
> medical field because it's true and accurate.
It's ABSURD, for the reasons already stated.
Just WHAT do toy have against emplyoing ACCURATE terminology?
They ARE embryoes and fetuses. So why not simply CALL them that?
Oh. Yeah. Right. because THEN you would stand NO chance of
eliciting a sympathetic response for your loathesome cause against
women from the bone-ignorant and the profoundly-gullible. What a
"shame" THAT would be. After all, it's the ONLY thing you've got
going for you -- in the total ABSENCE of ANY supporting ***facts***.
>>> ...merely to justify killing them?
>> Putting an end to WORTHLESS human entities -- which is what
>> all of those ARE, when **unwanted** by a host having NO desire to
>> gestate them -- requires NO more justification than does stepping on
>> an ant. I remind you of the QUADRILLION potential people that the
>> Anti-Choicers so obviously IGNORE.
> Is "worthless" a neutral term? How accurate is it?
100% accurate. the ONLY value that ANY reproductive-stage entity has
is that which the woman chooses to ASCRIBE to it. Which is ZILCH, when
the woman has NO desire to gestate it. (WHICH -- I remind you -- is HER
choice, and absolutely NONE of your business. Nor that of anyone else.)
> Sounds like a semantic word game to me.
Proving that you are FAR from being the brightest candle in the lamp
shop.
> So is "human entity," a statement with virtually no political
> meaning save that which you are obviously trying to imply.
Wrong again. Look up "human" as an adjective, and the noun,
"entity." My terminology is 100% ACCURATE.
>>>> ...which are OBVIOUSLY designed to elicit emotional support
>>>> from the handful of people who would be PROFOUNDLY ignorant
>>>> and/or gullible enough to fall for them.
>>>>
>>>> ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>> Hm, you mean like your attempts to elicit sympathy for the "hardships"
>>> of pregnant women whose "lives could be put back on track" and thus
>>> not "relegated to second class citizen status" etc etc etc?
>> No more needs to be done to defend REAL people than to simply present
>> the FACTS.
> So why the hysteria?
The hysteria is all on YOUR side of the fence. JUST as was the case
when the Coivil Rights activists 40 years ago reasonably dealt with the
EQUALLY (to the Anti-Choicers and today's RRR cultists) asinine and
hysterical segregationists who SHRIEKED about their nonsensical fears
of "mongrelization" of humanity by mixing the races. Unfortunately, such
ignorance is not yet completely dead. It's alive and well in the minds
of the idiotic minority who claims that there's anything wrong with the
remedy of abortion... and who seek to DENY **equal** rights to
homosexuals... and who would just love to **censor** everything in
sight, if only they could.
Egalitarians simply present the FACTS, and thus devastate their
ludicrous agendas.
>> Only the bone-ignorant and the hateful still seek to impose
>> hardship after learning those.
> Again, so why the hysteria?
See above. The ONLY hysterics out and about are you control-freakish
loons who are moronic enough to be busybodies. That doesn't fly, and it
never will. Your agendas will join all of the OTHER equally-idiotic
agendas of the last 137 years... in extinction. Where they belong.
>>> Wow, my heart bleeds for them.
>> The ONLY thing *your* heart bleeds for are entities which you seek
>> to use as leverage to make the lives of millions of people miserable.
> That's interesting coming from someone who's main interest in life is
> that women have empty wombs and empty wallets.
You really are one VERY mixed-up loser, aren't you?
PRO-**CHOICE** means exactly THAT. We support, 100%, *whichever*
option the woman CHOOSES. Carrying-to-term or abortion. Unfortunately,
we still need to DEFEND *one* of those options, because a collection of
hateful loons like YOU are too selfish to accept that, and so idiotically
seek to DENY one of those options to women. No wonder you're such
laughingstocks in they eyes of society. That is the very ESSENCE and the
EPITOME of utter **stupidity**!!
> Being pro-choice means supporting adoption, too, Craig.
Of COURSE we do! What ever gave you the idea that we DON'T???
FIRST... the woman gets to CHOOSE whether or not to gestate to term.
THEN... if she chooses TO do that -- the gets to CHOOSE whether to
keep the baby, or adopt-out.
TWO completely separate and different choices. The second doesn't
even come up if abortion is the choice. And does, if getation is her
choice. So stop dragging the red herrings around. ALL that is being
discussed here is her FIRST pair of options.
-- Craig Chilton xana...@mchsi.com
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
ANALYZING ABORTION-ON-REQUEST* in the USA
*(Abortion Rights as they have existed since 1-22-73)
Abortion terminates entities (z/e/fs: zygotes, embryoes &
fetuses, up until the 7th month of gestation*) which have ALL
of these characteristics in common with 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 z/e/fs but NOT sperm and ova.
*(AFTER the 7th month of gestation, rudimentary conscious
awareness is regarded possible, by medical science. But
that's a moot point since, per a report by JAMA, 99.99996%
of U.S. abortions already have been performed by that
point.)
And the Bible, which is the primary moral authority for the
majority of Americans:
-- 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 s/o/z/e/fs
-- Reserves ALL of its protection for already-BORN people
-- That the Bible regards personhood to begin at BIRTH is
made clear by its immense emphasis on the importance
of BIRTH order, and BIRTHrights.
-- In certain cases, condemned BABIES to horrible deaths
-- Never indicates that there is anything "special" about
fertilization
-- Thus making z/e/f and sperm & ova of EQUAL worth
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
-- Restore their full range of future opportunities
-- 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
-- Reduce likelihood of long-term economic deprivation
-- Avoid bringing child into 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 2000, 40 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 was at 40-year
lows in many categories.
-- The decade of the 1990s, and the year 2002 to date, in
the USA, has been the most economically-dynamic of
any nation in the entire history of the world.
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 a strong U.S. economy benefits the entire
world.
-- Originally posted to alt.abortion & talk.abortion
on Aug. 13, 2000, and updated since.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Mizzyandrea
It's dehumanizing to claim that fetuses are not living human beings
(on par with yourself), which it seems you routinely do. You can't
even bring yourself to call them "the unborn" which is generally
accepted both in society and in the medical field because it's true
and accurate.
"dehumanizing"?.........you fucking boil on a pig's testicle!
What's dehumanizing is to suggest that a mere embryo is more important than
the woman who would be expected to incubate it. That's what's
dehumanizing......... making women second class citizens!
Ohhhhhhhh.......but fuck whistles like yourself don't care about women. You
have this sick and perverted facination with embryos and fetuses......
There's no such thing as the "unborn"....... unless you're one of those
fucking necrophiliac types who calls himself the "undead"....... you misserable
bucket of pus.
I'm in the "medical field", idiot.........and we have FETAL
MONITORS........and FETOSCOPES.........and FETAL TESTS............ there's
nothing called "unborn" anything. You morons dream up this shit and you are
refuted every time because it's all lies.
Tell me, ass monkey, why the fuck do you think abortion is
legal?.........because the NIXON APPOINTED court was too
"liberal"..........no, shit for brains, it was not.......... It was
conservative enough to realize that the WOMAN is the human being and the
wouldbe human being does not have more rights than she has........
Let me shove a crowbar up your ass.........with an 18 lb sack of bricks tied to
your fucking abdomen....... you walk around like that......then you tell me how
easy it is to be pregnant!
Oooh.......all this sympathy and compassion for fucking embryos........... but
your the cocksucker who DEHUMANIZES women by suggesting that we are less
important than a one inch wad of tissue........
you're a fucking moron.
Ray Fischer
>You're not interested in facts, that has been repeatedly demonstrated.
94% on the irony meter.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Chris
"...you have been a whiney, hateful and immature
little bitch.".
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=bitch+group:talk.abortion+author:Craig+author:Chilton&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3ab34186.323811505%40news.wtrlo1.ia.home.com&rnum=5
>
> <tripe-snip>
>
> >> (I don't believe in insulting dogs.)
>
> > Oh, so now calling someone a "dog" is a neutral and
> > honest term?
>
> You know, when i wrote that, I sorta figured you'd misintertret it.
> You never HAVE been any good at recognizing anything that's
> abstract. Of course, if you COULD, you'd probably be intelligent
> enough **not** to even BE an Anti-Choicer.
>
> I was to the fact that if I WERE to call a bigoted louse a "bitch,"
> then THAT would consititute an insult to all female dogs.
>
> > How are you defining neutral and honest?
>
> One hell of a lot better thn YOU are ever likely to be.
Red herring AND ad hominem based upon speculation.
>
> >> "Loon," in its definition that fits a person who's a wacko, is an
> >> ACCURATE descriptor for ALL who support the loathesome
> >> and mindless agendas of homophobia, Anti-Choice, and other
> >> darlings of the RRR cult.
>
> > Neither loon nor wacko are neutral or honest terms. They are
> > insulting slang, period.
>
> Slang, they may be. But when employed as ACCURATE descriptors;
> i.e., for a person who is deranged enought to seek to impose immense
> hardship upon millions of people for NO good reason... as all ANTI-
> Choicers do... then there's nothing "insulting" about it. It's simply a
> statement of fact, slang or no slang.
Correction: it is an opinion.
Ad hominem.
"Carrying to term" is no more a choice than is breathing. It is an automatic
bodily function. The ONLY choice is whether or not one will destroy the
fetus.
Craig Chilton
Chris <re...@juno.com> wrote:
> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> "Sneechres" <snee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
>>>> ...and NEVER "bitch."
>>> Liar. You used that term in reference to yours truly. How quickly
>>> you forget.
>>>
>>> 3e0d0fa3....@netnews.mchsi.com
>> I'll admit that refering to a person as a "bitchy fruitcake of a
>> troll" comes CLOSE to your criteria, but misses the mark. Such
>> an adjective does not measure up to being the same as calling a
>> person a "bitch" (noun). Nice TRY, though.
> "...you have been a whiney, hateful and immature
> little bitch.".
>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=bitch+group:talk.abortion+author:Craig+author:Chilton&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3ab34186.323811505%40news.wtrlo1.ia.home.com&rnum=5
I will have to admit that you made a good "catch" there -- for
whatever it is worth. I'd honestly fotgotten having ever said that.
And I'll bet that it is the ONLY time I ever did.
For this lone instance, I offer my apologies to all female canines.
[ ... ]
>>> Neither loon nor wacko are neutral or honest terms. They are
>>> insulting slang, period.
>> Slang, they may be. But when employed as ACCURATE descriptors;
>> i.e., for a person who is deranged enought to seek to impose immense
>> hardship upon millions of people for NO good reason... as all ANTI-
>> Choicers do... then there's nothing "insulting" about it. It's simply a
>> statement of fact, slang or no slang.
> Correction: it is an opinion.
It's a statement of fact WHEN the person thus described have
PROVEN themselves to be such, in their publicly-posted writings.
>> PRO-**CHOICE** means exactly THAT. We support, 100%,
>> *whichever* option the woman CHOOSES. Carrying-to-term or
>> abortion.
> "Carrying to term" is no more a choice than is breathing. It is an
> automatic bodily function.
WHEN permitted to continue, yes. Fortunately, now that women no
longer are relegated to second-class-citizen status in this country, they
are no longer FORCED into doing so. They are free to CHOOSE to
UNDO that medical condition, when it is unwanted by them.
> The ONLY choice is whether or not one will [get an abortion].
Wrong. NOT getting an abortion, and thus *permitting* gestation to
continue, is the OTHER option. Thus, it IS a choice, no matter HOW much
you whiningly want people to believe your mindless tripe in that regard.
-- Craig Chilton xana...@mchsi.com
Craig Chilton
"Mizzyandrea" <mizzy...@aol.com> wrote:
> "Sneechres" <snee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
>> It's dehumanizing to claim that fetuses are not living human beings
>> (on par with yourself), which it seems you routinely do. You can't
>> even bring yourself to call them "the unborn" which is generally
>> accepted both in society and in the medical field because it's true
>> and accurate.
> "Dehumanizing"?..... you fucking boil on a pig's testicle!
>
> What's dehumanizing is to suggest that a mere embryo is more
> important than the woman who would be expected to incubate it.
> That's what's dehumanizing... making women second-class citizens!
>
> Ohhhhhhhh....... but fuck whistles like yourself don't care about women.
> You have this sick and perverted facination with embryos and fetuses......
> There's no such thing as the "unborn".... unless you're one of those
> fucking necrophiliac types who calls himself the "undead".... you miserable
> bucket of pus.
>
> I'm in the "medical field", idiot.........and we have FETAL MONITORS...
> and FETOSCOPES... and FETAL TESTS. There's nothing called "unborn"
> anything. You morons dream up this shit and you are refuted every time
> because it's all lies.
>
> Tell me, ass monkey, why the fuck do you think abortion is legal?
> ...because the NIXON APPOINTED court was too "liberal"? No, shit
> for brains, it was not... It was conservative enough to realize that the
> WOMAN is the human being and the would-be human being does not
> have more rights than she has........
>
> Let me shove a crowbar up your ass... with an 18-lb. sack of bricks
> tied to your fucking abdomen. You walk around like that... then you
> tell me how easy it is to be pregnant!
>
> Oooh... all this sympathy and compassion for fucking embryos... but
> you're the cocksucker who DEHUMANIZES women by suggesting that
> we are less important than a one-inch wad of tissue........
>
> You're a fucking moron.
Mizzyandrea -- even though I, personally, don't happen to employ
language that is as graphic as yours in my own posts, you have hit the
nail PRECISELY on the head with the above, and made very CLEAR
the hatefulness and the idiocy of the Anti-Choicers.
I **LOVE** the way you put them in their place with accuracy,
precision, and an eloquence that I can only envy!
They had EVERY WORD of what you said, above coming -- right
squarely between they eyes!!
Great going!!! And please DO keep right on telling it like it IS!!
You are a breath of VERY fresh air to this issue!!
-- Craig Chilton xana...@mchsi.com
n...@spam.com
Heh. What a total JERKOFF.
Good to see two like-minded individuals with the same required prerequisite
sicko view of pregnancy (i.e. Motherhood). You're sick!
>
> I **LOVE** the way you put them in their place with accuracy,
> precision, and an eloquence that I can only envy!
heheh. You are pathetic.
>
> They had EVERY WORD of what you said, above coming -- right
> squarely between they eyes!!
Well, it lowered my confidence in the humanity of you people.... But that's
about it.
>
> Great going!!! And please DO keep right on telling it like it IS!!
>
> You are a breath of VERY fresh air to this issue!!
Stinking feminazi breath more like.
>
> -- Craig Chilton xana...@mchsi.com
Sorry - the freaks are on your side of the issue.
Mizzyandrea
What would you know about any woman's 'breath'?......no self respecting woman
would let an infected intestional polyp, like yourself, within ten feet of
her........you sorry piece of goat shit!
We know you hate women because every woman who has seen you naked burst out in
convulsed laughter....... doubling over and quietly inching out the door
least you touch her with that microscopic thing of yours.
If you want to get laid you have to crawl up a chicken's ass and
wait!.......you misserable pus oozing scab!
Osprey
<n...@spam.com> wrote in message news:3F271C14...@spam.com...
I wouldn't even sweat it, what they think and say is of no importance. You
are right, you know it and that is all that matters. They know it too, but
they just want to act like idiots instead of just actually reasoning and
discussing the issue.
Frank Dwyer
>
> Craig Chilton wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 00:32:44 +0000,
> > Anonymous Loser <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Chris <re...@juno.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> "Papa Jack" <papa...@stic.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >
> >
> >>>>>> Want to see what unborn children look like during
> >>>>>>the ages when most abortions occur?
> >>>>>
> >
> >>>>> "EMBRYOES" and "FETUSES," you mean?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Unborn child" is a NONSENSE term. The equivalent of
> >>>>>calling a living adult person an "undead corpse."
> >>>>
> >
> >>>> But a corpse, by definition, is dead.
> >>>
> >
> >>> Apples and oranges. A living adult is NOT YET a corpse, and
> >>>a fetus is NOT YET a child.
> >>
> >
> >> "Unborn child" because it's a child not yet born. Nothing to do
> >>with it not being a child.
> >
> >
> > As Mizzyandrea just pointed out, calling a human entity in
> > the reproductive process an "unborn child" is just as ridiculous
> > as it would be to call an acorn a "little oak tree."
>
> We're talking about trees or seeds. An unborn child is not a seed.
> GAMETES are the "seeds"....
Is "calling a caterpillar a butterfly" a better analogy for you?
> > And when
> > Anti-Choicers employ such terminology, it ALWAYS is a
> > transparently-obvious attempt on their part to elicit sympathy
> > from the handful of bone-ignorant or profoundly-gullible people
> > who could be taken in by it.
>
> If they were it would transparently obvious and you wouldn't have to say
> so. Could it be you're full of crap?
Could be, but he isn't.
Mizzyandrea
language that is as graphic as yours in my own posts, you have hit the
nail PRECISELY on the head with the above, and made very CLEAR
the hatefulness and the idiocy of the Anti-Choicers.
I'm a nurse and my knowledge of medicine tends to creep its way into my
verbiage....... I do feel that I can get my point across and still act like
a lady. I'm glad you appreciate my observations.
Mizzyandrea
are right, you know it and that is all that matters. They know it too, but
they just want to act like idiots instead of just actually reasoning and
discussing the issue.
Of course not, Oh-PISS-spray......... why would you pay attention to anything
truthful?........it's not your style. Instead you post lies and
slander........like when you call Patrick a "pedophile" based on your own
twisted and perverse desires........ you misserable
trans-colon-resection........ A stupid fuck, like yourself, lacks the brain
power to process anything that doesn't come with a color book and crayons!
Why don't you tell us again about how women "suffer" after having
abortions......... that's another one of your pathetic lies. THEN I'll point
you to knighthawk who will verify what it's like to give a kid up for
adoption as opposed to abortion.........WHICH, if she had to do over again,
she'd have instead of 9 months of hell to hand her kid over to
strangers..........but oooh, a stupid cocksucking maggot mouth piece of filth,
like yourself, does not give a good solid shit what a WOMAN endures because
you don't care about women. You pretend to care but you only care about
embryos and your own inflated sense of self-importance.......... IF your ass
were as big as your ego, ivory poachers would be gunning you down........ BUT
all that ego is wasted on a simpering limp wristed dog's ass of a male-- YOU!
Craig Chilton
[ ... ]
>> Mizzyandrea -- even though I, personally, don't happen to employ
>> language that is as graphic as yours in my own posts, you have hit the
>> nail PRECISELY on the head with the above, and made very CLEAR
>> the hatefulness and the idiocy of the Anti-Choicers.
> I'm a nurse and my knowledge of medicine tends to creep its way
> into my verbiage... I do feel that I can get my point across and still
> act like a lady. I'm glad you appreciate my observations.
"Appreciate" them is an understatement!! You are doing a
PHENOMENAL job of exposing the hypocrisies and hatefulness
of the Anti-Choicers!
-- Craig Chilton xana...@mchsi.com
Craig Chilton
Anonymous Loser <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
Heh. What a... er... "profound" statement. Clueless... as usual.
No Anti-Choicer would know a FACT if it bit him in the butt!
> Good to see two like-minded individuals with the same required
> prerequisite sicko view of pregnancy (i.e. Motherhood). You're sick!
Pregnancy is pathological UNLESS it is desired. if desired, it is
the opposit: a blessing. And WHICH it happens to be is the WOMAN'S
choice... NOT that of ignorant andbusybodyish control-freaks like you.
>> I **LOVE** the way you put them in their place with accuracy,
>> precision, and an eloquence that I can only envy!
> heheh. You are pathetic.
FURTHER evidence of your inability to present any FACTS to support
your loathesome stance against women. Just like ALL of the other
Anti-Choicers and RRR cultists -- you are a JOKE.
>> They had EVERY WORD of what you said, above coming -- right
>> squarely between they eyes!!
> Well, it lowered my confidence in the humanity of you people....
GOOD!!!!! We would most assuredly hate to have ANYTHING in
common with the warped values of bigots like you. If you ever were to
AGREE with me on something, **that** would be something for me to
worry about. As long as you are in total disagreement with what I'm
doing, then i know that I am doing my job RIGHT as a fair-minded,
egalitarian defender of individual liberties.
> But that's about it.
LOL!!!! And that's about ALL we can ever expect from a clueless
loser like you.
>> Great going!!! And please DO keep right on telling it like it IS!!
>>
>> You are a breath of VERY fresh air to this issue!!
<lying hate-propaganda snipped>
-- Craig Chilton xana...@mchsi.com
Craig Chilton
Robert Heishman ("Osprey") wrote:
> Anonymous Loser <n...@spam.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
>> Sorry - the freaks are on your side of the issue.
Really, Anonymous Loser? Let's take a look at YOUR side of the
issue.
People like YOU support a loathesome agenda that actually seeks
to impose IMMENSE hardship upon no fewer than tens of MILLIONS
of women by FORCING childbirth upon them. AGAINST their will.
Resulting in the DENIAL of their rights... their RELEGATION to
second-class-citizen status... their INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE to
mere, NON-sentient developing entities which are, in all important
ways, equivalent to sperm and ova (human, unique, NON-sentient,
a stage of development without which NO births would occur --
and alive); entities which the WOMEN would very properly, under
the circumstances, regard to be parasitic. Further manifestations of
that hardship would be the DISRUPTION of their well-being, both
short-term and long-term (as in, for decades or a lifetime)... and
the DESTRUCTION of countless of their opportunities.
That alone makes you totally without excuse!
Then you can couple THAT with the fact that ALL existing facts that
are relevant to this issue support to PRO-Choice side. There are NO
facts to support being ANTI-Choice.
There are freaks in this issue, all right. And they ALL are on YOUR
side of it. JUST as all the freaks in the Civil Rights issue, 40 years
ago were the segregationists. SAME mindless bigotry. SAME loathesome
hatefulness. SAME totally unjustifiable agenda having NO supporting
facts. Only the TARGETS were different: blacks then, and women, now.
And just before the segregationist agenda became extinct, its
adherents had become America's National Laughingstock. The SAME
stage that Anti-Choice is in today.
> I wouldn't even sweat it, what they think and say is of no
> importance.
Interesting. Then to YOU, the FACTS are of no importance.
Not surprising that you feel that way, since NO facts support being
Anti-Choice.
> You are right, you know it and that is all that matters.
Wow. Talk about being DELUDED! (LOL!!!)
> They know it too, but they just want to act like idiots instead of
> just actually reasoning and discussing the issue.
I **DID** that very thing with you a few weeks ago, Robert.
I guess this is the thanks I get for that, huh?
Small wonder that no Pro-Choicer ever trusts an Anti-Choicer to have
an honest bone in his/her body. They keep right on PROVING that they
don't.
-- Craig Chilton xana...@mchsi.com
Chris
Does that include the individual liberty to choose whether or not to send
one's child to government school, and the individual liberty to KEEP all of
one's earned income, and the individual liberty to maintain possession of
one's private property without being forced to give the government people
one thin dime, and the individual liberty to refuse service to anyone within
one's private business, and the individual liberty of a landlord to refuse
to rent to anyone that he so chooses?
Chris
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 08:52:23 -0700,
> Chris <re...@juno.com> wrote:
> > Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >> "Sneechres" <snee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>
> [ ... ]
>
> >>>> ...and NEVER "bitch."
>
> >>> Liar. You used that term in reference to yours truly. How
quickly
> >>> you forget.
> >>>
> >>> 3e0d0fa3....@netnews.mchsi.com
>
> >> I'll admit that refering to a person as a "bitchy fruitcake of a
> >> troll" comes CLOSE to your criteria, but misses the mark. Such
> >> an adjective does not measure up to being the same as calling a
> >> person a "bitch" (noun). Nice TRY, though.
>
> > "...you have been a whiney, hateful and immature
> > little bitch.".
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=bitch+group:talk.abortion+author:Craig+au
thor:Chilton&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3ab34186.323811505%40news.wtrl
o1.ia.home.com&rnum=5
>
> I will have to admit that you made a good "catch" there -- for
> whatever it is worth. I'd honestly fotgotten having ever said that.
> And I'll bet that it is the ONLY time I ever did.
>
> For this lone instance, I offer my apologies to all female canines.
Hilarious, to say the least. But I have to give it to you, it probably IS
the only time you used it.
>
> [ ... ]
>
> >>> Neither loon nor wacko are neutral or honest terms. They are
> >>> insulting slang, period.
>
> >> Slang, they may be. But when employed as ACCURATE descriptors;
> >> i.e., for a person who is deranged enought to seek to impose immense
> >> hardship upon millions of people for NO good reason... as all ANTI-
> >> Choicers do... then there's nothing "insulting" about it. It's simply
a
> >> statement of fact, slang or no slang.
>
> > Correction: it is an opinion.
>
> It's a statement of fact WHEN the person thus described have
> PROVEN themselves to be such, in their publicly-posted writings.
That's like me "proving" that broccoli tastes bad. I happen to like it. :)
>
> >> PRO-**CHOICE** means exactly THAT. We support, 100%,
> >> *whichever* option the woman CHOOSES. Carrying-to-term or
> >> abortion.
>
> > "Carrying to term" is no more a choice than is breathing. It is an
> > automatic bodily function.
>
> WHEN permitted to continue, yes. Fortunately, now that women no
> longer are relegated to second-class-citizen status in this country, they
> are no longer FORCED into doing so.
That's like forcing someone who's already breathing to breathe. How does one
do that? Perhaps strap them to a gurney and put a ventilator on their mouth?
> They are free to CHOOSE to
> UNDO that medical condition, when it is unwanted by them.
As they have ALWAYS been. Andrea Yates undid her medical condition too. Her
kids were giving her a headache.
>
> > The ONLY choice is whether or not one will [get an abortion].
>
> Wrong. NOT getting an abortion, and thus *permitting* gestation to
> continue, is the OTHER option. Thus, it IS a choice, no matter HOW much
> you whiningly want people to believe your mindless tripe in that regard.
"Mindless tripe"? "NOT getting an abortion" isn't a choice; it is a
NON-action..... next.
At least I give you credit for admitting that the above anecdote is a
copy/paste of your worn out rhetoric.
Pope Dilbert
"Osprey" <noneed...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:0EqdnfESv_T...@comcast.com...
Bwaahhhaaaaaaaa....... ever time I see a blatant lie ... a distortion of the
truth .. and extremist, fanatical action ... it is the ANTI-ABORTIONISTS who
are ALWAYS behind it!
Even the attitude that you are right - and the others know, but refuse to
admit it, is nothing more than ignorant arrogance!
Krisblake
[...]
>Does that include the individual liberty to choose whether or not to send
>one's child to government school, and the individual liberty to KEEP all of
>one's earned income,
I have an idea: Why don't you go find yourself some land somewhere in
the Southern African bush where nobody will know you exist. You can
protect yourself; hunt for your own game; grow your own vegetables;
build your own shelter; pave your own road to the river, and not have
to worry about paying a red nickel to anybody -- you'd have no
responsibility to anybody but yourself (and this way, noone will have
to take responibility for what you don't want to pay.)
Sounds lekke?
Krisblake
[...]
>Well, it lowered my confidence in the humanity of you people....
That's because we don't lick your backside.
n...@spam.com
n...@spam.com
> On 29 Jul 2003 13:24:58 GMT,
> "Mizzyandrea" <mizzy...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> "Sneechres" <snee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> [ ... ]
>
>
>>> It's dehumanizing to claim that fetuses are not living human beings
>>>(on par with yourself), which it seems you routinely do. You can't
>>>even bring yourself to call them "the unborn" which is generally
>>>accepted both in society and in the medical field because it's true
>>>and accurate.
>>
>
>> "Dehumanizing"?..... you fucking boil on a pig's testicle!
>>
>> What's dehumanizing is to suggest that a mere embryo is more
>>important than the woman who would be expected to incubate it.
>>That's what's dehumanizing... making women second-class citizens!
>>
>> Ohhhhhhhh....... but fuck whistles like yourself don't care about women.
>>You have this sick and perverted facination with embryos and fetuses......
>>There's no such thing as the "unborn".... unless you're one of those
>>fucking necrophiliac types who calls himself the "undead".... you miserable
>>bucket of pus.
>>
>> I'm in the "medical field", idiot.........and we have FETAL MONITORS...
>>and FETOSCOPES... and FETAL TESTS. There's nothing called "unborn"
>>anything.
Obviously it's a more scientific term. It also uses less letters. But I
assure you everyone except radical pro-aborts like you know what an
unborn child is.
Check these definitions out:
Abortion Related Legal Terms
(from Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed., 1990)
Child; Children. Progeny; offspring of parentage. UNBORN or recently
born human being. Wilson v. Weaver, 358 F.Supp. 1147, 1154. . . . .
Rights of UNBORN child. The rights of an unborn child are recognized
in various different legal contexts; e.g. in criminal law, murder
includes the unlawful killing of a fetus (Cal.Penal Code §187), and
the law of property considers the unborn child in being for all
purposes which are to its benefit, such as taking by will or
decent....
En ventre sa mere. L.Fr. In its mother's womb. A term descriptive
of an unborn child. For some purposes the law regards an infant en
ventre as in being. It may take a legacy; have a guardian; an
estate may be limited to its use, etc. 1 Bl.Comm. 130. LaBlue v.
Specker, 358 Mich. 558, 100 N.W.2d 445, 447.
Unborn child. The individual human life in existence and
developing prior to birth. A child not yet born at the hap-
pening of an event. A child not yet born at the time of an
injury to his mother which causes the child to suffer an injury
may recover in most jurisdictions after birth if the child were
viable in his mother's womb at the time of the defendant's
wrongdoing....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WWLIA's Legal Dictionary gives us:
http://www.duhaime.org/dict-gh.htm
PERSON:
An entity with legal rights and existence including the
ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive
gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by law-
yer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full
expression of the entity in law. Individuals are "persons"
in law UNLESS THEY ARE MINORS OR UNDER SOME KIND OF OTHER
INCAPACITY such as a court finding of mental incapacity.
Many laws give certain powers to "persons" which, in
almost all instances, includes business organizations that
have been formally registered such as partnerships, corpor-
ations or associations.
(Thanks to Papa Jack for the original research!)
Btw, this is why Roe vs. Wade didn't explictly deny the humanity of
unborn children: it couldn't. To legalize abortion (across the US) they
had to make up some phoney right in the constitution. It's specfically
avoids saying anything on the most fundamental issue:
Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth
Amendment, life begins at conception and is
present throughout pregnancy, and that, there-
fore, the State has a compelling interest in
protecting that life from and after conception.
WE NEED NOT RESOLVE THE DIFFICULT QUESTION OF
WHEN LIFE BEGINS. When those trained in the
respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy,
and theology are unable to arrive at any con-
sensus, the judiciary, at this point in the
development of man's knowledge, is not in a
position to speculate as to the answer.
--the late Justice Blackmun in the Roe v Wade decision
>>You morons dream up this shit and you are refuted every time
>>because it's all lies.
>>
Oops. Looks like you're the one full of shit.
Well, you said it first. Judge as you be judged, right? LMAO.....
>> Tell me, ass monkey, why the fuck do you think abortion is legal?
>>...because the NIXON APPOINTED court was too "liberal"? No, shit
>>for brains, it was not... It was conservative enough to realize that the
>>WOMAN is the human being and the would-be human being does not
>>have more rights than she has........
>>
>> Let me shove a crowbar up your ass... with an 18-lb. sack of bricks
>>tied to your fucking abdomen. You walk around like that... then you
>>tell me how easy it is to be pregnant!
Eww. What a horrid little nazi feminist you are.
>>
>> Oooh... all this sympathy and compassion for fucking embryos... but
>>you're the cocksucker who DEHUMANIZES women by suggesting that
>>we are less important than a one-inch wad of tissue........
How big are we? Pretty insignificant compared to the galaxy.
Ever stood next to a very tall building and looked up? You seem to be
saying a building is more significant than a human being - any human being.
>>
>> You're a fucking moron.
Eww!!!! FEMINAZI ALERT.
n...@spam.com
NO facts? Wow! You're one arrogant S.O.B.
>
> There are freaks in this issue, all right. And they ALL are on YOUR
> side of it. JUST as all the freaks in the Civil Rights issue, 40 years
> ago were the segregationists. SAME mindless bigotry. SAME loathesome
> hatefulness. SAME totally unjustifiable agenda having NO supporting
> facts. Only the TARGETS were different: blacks then, and women, now.
>
> And just before the segregationist agenda became extinct, its
Thanks to the Republican Party, originally formed for just that purpose.
> adherents had become America's National Laughingstock.
Actually America's National Laughingstock are the radical feminists in
their Women's Studies departments who think they know better than
everyone else in society, lecturing them on what women and children
really need and even what they (lesbians) think men should be.
As if any man gonna want to impress a bunch of corrupt, bitter old hags
like them.
> The SAME
> stage that Anti-Choice is in today.
You don't think you're exaggerating just a *tad*?
>
>
>> I wouldn't even sweat it, what they think and say is of no
>>importance.
>
>
> Interesting. Then to YOU, the FACTS are of no importance.
> Not surprising that you feel that way, since NO facts support being
> Anti-Choice.
>
>
>> You are right, you know it and that is all that matters.
>
>
> Wow. Talk about being DELUDED! (LOL!!!)
>
>
>> They know it too, but they just want to act like idiots instead of
>>just actually reasoning and discussing the issue.
>
>
> I **DID** that very thing with you a few weeks ago, Robert.
No one's interesting in your definition of reasoning, CC. We use the one
in the dictionary.
Krisblake
The truth is, is that you *haven't* provided any (genuine) facts to
support your claims. All you have offered are your opinions of the
issue (and not to mention, your unfavourable opinion of the facts
we've provided.)
[...]
>Actually America's National Laughingstock are the radical feminists in
>their Women's Studies departments who think they know better than
>everyone else in society,
That's funny. Here, we some half-wit, spermless wonder in New Zealand
(YOU) who opines the insignificance of the dangers of pregnancy, as if
he knows what the fuck he's talking about.
[...]
Krisblake
Yes: A fictious character that plays in a fictitous setting (your
brain).
Craig Chilton
Anonymous Loser who hasn't the courage of his
convictions to put his name to his hate-postings,
"n...@spam.com," wrote:
> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> "Mizzyandrea" <mizzy...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
>>>> Mizzyandrea -- even though I, personally, don't happen to employ
>>>> language that is as graphic as yours in my own posts, you have hit the
>>>> nail PRECISELY on the head with the above, and made very CLEAR
>>>> the hatefulness and the idiocy of the Anti-Choicers.
>>> I'm a nurse and my knowledge of medicine tends to creep its way
>>> into my verbiage... I do feel that I can get my point across and still
>>> act like a lady. I'm glad you appreciate my observations.
>> "Appreciate" them is an understatement!! You are doing a
>> PHENOMENAL job of exposing the hypocrisies and hatefulness
>> of the Anti-Choicers!
> Oops. That means she's doing a very BAD job...... LMAO
In YOUR warped opinion. I wouldn't have it any other way. The
LAST thing we who are egalitarian freedom-fighters would ever want
to see is our opposition being in AGREEMENT with us. If that
happened, we'd THEN know that we were NOT dfoing our job right.
-- Craig Chilton xana...@mchsi.com
n...@spam.com
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 22:22:35 +0000,
> Anonymous Loser who hasn't the courage of his
> convictions to put his name to his hate-postings,
> "n...@spam.com," wrote:
I bet you're just miffed because you can't harrass me by email.
>
>> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Mizzyandrea" <mizzy...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>
>
>
> [ ... ]
>
>
>>>>> Mizzyandrea -- even though I, personally, don't happen to employ
>>>>>language that is as graphic as yours in my own posts, you have hit the
>>>>>nail PRECISELY on the head with the above, and made very CLEAR
>>>>>the hatefulness and the idiocy of the Anti-Choicers.
>>>>
>
>>>> I'm a nurse and my knowledge of medicine tends to creep its way
>>>>into my verbiage... I do feel that I can get my point across and still
>>>>act like a lady. I'm glad you appreciate my observations.
>>>
>
>>> "Appreciate" them is an understatement!! You are doing a
>>>PHENOMENAL job of exposing the hypocrisies and hatefulness
>>>of the Anti-Choicers!
>>
>
>> Oops. That means she's doing a very BAD job...... LMAO
>
>
> In YOUR warped opinion. I wouldn't have it any other way. The
> LAST thing we who are egalitarian freedom-fighters would ever want
> to see is our opposition being in AGREEMENT with us. If that
> happened, we'd THEN know that we were NOT dfoing our job right.
Ok, if that's the easiest way to convince you that you're wrong:
I AGREE WITH YOU.
Gee, I only wish I learned that 100 posts ago.
n...@spam.com
Thanks for the words.
Let me say that Craig Chilton's b.s. slides right off me. The only
danger they have posed to me and my expressing my point of view is that
by laughing so hard I forget what a deadly serious this issue is.
Craig Chilton
convictions to put his name to his hate-postings,
"n...@spam.com," wrote:
[ ... ]
Really? Then how about being the FIRST Anti-Choicer that I've ever
seen in here actually POSTING a real FACT that supports your stance?
I've never seen that done by ANY Anti-Choicer in more than 40 years of
activism in defense of the valuable remedy of abortion. The BEST they
can ever come up with is lame and clueless whines like YOURS, just now.
ONE actual ***FACT***.
Just ONE!!!
You could give us a rough time if you ever were to produce one.
But since I truly don't believe ANY facts even EXIST which support
your loathesome stance against women, i won't be holding my breath.
Meanwhile, we who are PRO-Choie not only have ALL of the relevant
facts on our side... we also have a whole HOST of them. As can easily be
seen in the outline i frequently post as a SIG, and which NO Anti-Choicer
has ever disproven ANY of.
>> There are freaks in this issue, all right. And they ALL are on YOUR
>> side of it. JUST as all the freaks in the Civil Rights issue, 40 years
>> ago were the segregationists. SAME mindless bigotry. SAME loathesome
>> hatefulness. SAME totally unjustifiable agenda having NO supporting
>> facts. Only the TARGETS were different: blacks then, and women, now.
>>
>> And just before the segregationist agenda became extinct, its...
> Thanks to the Republican Party, originally formed for just that purpose.
Nice try! The Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and '65 were promoted and
supported by JFK and LBJ -- both DEMOCRATS. And today's Republican
Party doesn't give a flying rat's ass for SEVERAL valuable individual
liberties.
>> ...adherents had become America's National Laughingstock.
> Actually America's National Laughingstock are the radical feminists in
> their Women's Studies departments who think they know better than
> everyone else in society, lecturing them on what women and children
> really need and even what they (lesbians) think men should be.
Whine, whine whine. "Radical" feminists. YAWNN-n-n-n-n-n-n-n-n.
> As if any man gonna want to impress a bunch of corrupt, bitter old hags
> like them.
A woman stands up for her rights as an EQUAL in our society, and
YOUR ilk therefore regard them to be "corrupt and bitter old hags."
Thanks for this further PROOF that you are both a mindless bigot and
a complete idiot. No WONDER you choose to be an ANONYMOUS loser!
>> The SAME stage that Anti-Choice is in today.
> You don't think you're exaggerating just a *tad*?
Not in the least. Any fair-minded and thinking egalitarian regards
the Anti-Choice agenda to be AL LEAST ludicrous, and more likely the
hate-agenda that it is.
>>> I wouldn't even sweat it, what they think and say is of no
>>> importance.
>> Interesting. Then to YOU, the FACTS are of no importance.
>> Not surprising that you feel that way, since NO facts support being
>> Anti-Choice.
>>> You are right, you know it and that is all that matters.
>> Wow. Talk about being DELUDED! (LOL!!!)
>>> They know it too, but they just want to act like idiots instead of
>>> just actually reasoning and discussing the issue.
>> I **DID** that very thing with you a few weeks ago, Robert.
> No one's interesting in your definition of reasoning, CC. We use the
> one in the dictionary.
Hmmm. An interesting substitute for REASONING. No surprise.
Craig Chilton
> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> Anonymous Loser <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>> "Mizzyandrea" <mizzy...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> "Sneechres" <snee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
>> No Anti-Choicer would know a FACT if it bit him in the butt!
>>> Good to see two like-minded individuals with the same required
>>> prerequisite sicko view of pregnancy (i.e. Motherhood). You're sick!
>> Pregnancy is pathological UNLESS it is desired. if desired, it is
>> the opposit: a blessing. And WHICH it happens to be is the WOMAN'S
>> choice... NOT that of ignorant andbusybodyish control-freaks like you.
>>>> I **LOVE** the way you put them in their place with accuracy,
>>>> precision, and an eloquence that I can only envy!
>>> heheh. You are pathetic.
>> FURTHER evidence of your inability to present any FACTS to support
>> your loathesome stance against women. Just like ALL of the other
>> Anti-Choicers and RRR cultists -- you are a JOKE.
>>>> They had EVERY WORD of what you said, above coming -- right
>>>> squarely between they eyes!!
>>> Well, it lowered my confidence in the humanity of you people....
>> GOOD!!!!! We would most assuredly hate to have ANYTHING in
>> common with the warped values of bigots like you. If you ever were to
>> AGREE with me on something, **that** would be something for me to
>> worry about. As long as you are in total disagreement with what I'm
>> doing, then i know that I am doing my job RIGHT as a fair-minded,
>> egalitarian defender of individual liberties.
> Does that include ... the individual liberty to KEEP all of one's
> earned income, and the individual liberty to maintain possession of
> one's private property without being forced to give the government people
> one thin dime, and the individual liberty to refuse service to anyone within
> one's private business, and the individual liberty of a landlord to refuse
> to rent to anyone that he so chooses?
All of which is OFF-topic in this thread. But if you're concerned
about such things, use Google to find the MANY excellent websites that
support an initiative to substitute a National Sales Tax for the IRS. If
that ever happened, we'd get ALL of our money, and pay the necessary
taxes in the process of buying whatever WE want to buy.
-- Craig Chilton xana...@mchsi.com
Craig Chilton
convictions to put his name to his hate-postings,
"n...@spam.com," wrote:
>> Anonymous Loser who hasn't the courage of his
>> convictions to put his name to his hate-postings,
>> "n...@spam.com," wrote:
> I bet you're just miffed because you can't harrass me by email.
Yeah. Like I'd really waste my time doing something like that.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I wage my debating publicly, so that
everyone can see my opponents reduce to dog meat by the FACTS
they can't disprove.
Furthermore, you could use your real name, and either a phony
e-mail address -- or a hotmail one -- and THEN at least demonstrate
that you have the courage of your convictions. As things stand
now, you're merely a bigoted COWARD.
>>> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>> "Mizzyandrea" <mizzy...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
>>>>>> Mizzyandrea -- even though I, personally, don't happen to
>>>>>> employ language that is as graphic as yours in my own posts,
>>>>>> you have hit the nail PRECISELY on the head with the above,
>>>>>> and made very CLEAR the hatefulness and the idiocy of the
>>>>>> Anti-Choicers.
>>>>> I'm a nurse and my knowledge of medicine tends to creep its way
>>>>> into my verbiage... I do feel that I can get my point across and still
>>>>> act like a lady. I'm glad you appreciate my observations.
>>>> "Appreciate" them is an understatement!! You are doing a
>>>> PHENOMENAL job of exposing the hypocrisies and hatefulness
>>>> of the Anti-Choicers!
>>> Oops. That means she's doing a very BAD job...... LMAO
>> In YOUR warped opinion. I wouldn't have it any other way. The
>> LAST thing we who are egalitarian freedom-fighters would ever want
>> to see is our opposition being in AGREEMENT with us. If that
>> happened, we'd THEN know that we were NOT dfoing our job right.
> Ok, if that's the easiest way to convince you that you're wrong:
>
> I AGREE WITH YOU.
>
> Gee, I only wish I learned that 100 posts ago.
Anti-Choicers just love to make complete fools of themselves.
You never disappoint.
ROTFL!!!
-- Craig Chilton xana...@mchsi.com
Craig Chilton
convictions to put his name to his hate-postings,
"n...@spam.com," wrote:
>> Anonymous Loser who hasn't the courage of his
>> convictions to put his name to his hate-postings,
>> "n...@spam.com," wrote:
>>>> "Mizzyandrea" <mizzy...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> "Sneechres" <snee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
>>>>>> It's dehumanizing to claim that fetuses are not living human
>>>>>> beings (on par with yourself), which it seems you routinely do.
>>>>>> You can't even bring yourself to call them "the unborn" which
>>>>>> is generally accepted both in society and in the medical field
>>>>>> because it's true and accurate.
>>>>> "Dehumanizing"?..... you fucking boil on a pig's testicle!
>>>>>
>>>>> What's dehumanizing is to suggest that a mere embryo is more
>>>>> important than the woman who would be expected to incubate it.
>>>>> That's what's dehumanizing... making women second-class citizens!
[ ... ]
>>>>> I'm in the "medical field", idiot.........and we have FETAL
>>>>> MONITORS... and FETOSCOPES... and FETAL TESTS. There's
>>>>> nothing called "unborn" anything. You morons dream up this shit
>>>>> and you are refuted every time because it's all lies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell me, ass monkey, why the fuck do you think abortion is legal?
>>>>> ...because the NIXON APPOINTED court was too "liberal"? No, shit
>>>>> for brains, it was not... It was conservative enough to realize that
>>>>> the WOMAN is the human being and the would-be human being
>>>>> does not have more rights than she has........
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me shove a crowbar up your ass... with an 18-lb. sack of bricks
>>>>> tied to your fucking abdomen. You walk around like that... then you
>>>>> tell me how easy it is to be pregnant!
>>>>>
>>>>> Oooh... all this sympathy and compassion for fucking embryos...
>>>>> but you're the cocksucker who DEHUMANIZES women by
>>>>> suggesting that we are less important than a one-inch wad of
>>>>> tissue........
>>>>>
>>>>> You're a fucking moron.
>>>> Mizzyandrea -- even though I, personally, don't happen to employ
>>>> language that is as graphic as yours in my own posts, you have hit the
>>>> nail PRECISELY on the head with the above, and made very CLEAR
>>>> the hatefulness and the idiocy of the Anti-Choicers.
>>>>
>>>> I **LOVE** the way you put them in their place with accuracy,
>>>> precision, and an eloquence that I can only envy!
>>>>
>>>> They had EVERY WORD of what you said, above coming -- right
>>>> squarely between they eyes!!
>>>>
>>>> Great going!!! And please DO keep right on telling it like it IS!!
>>>>
>>>> You are a breath of VERY fresh air to this issue!!
>>> Stinking feminazi breath more like.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry - the freaks are on your side of the issue.
>> I wouldn't even sweat it, what they think and say is of no importance.
>> You are right, you know it and that is all that matters. They know it too,
>> but they just want to act like idiots instead of just actually reasoning and
>> discussing the issue.
> Thanks for the words.
>
> Let me say that Craig Chilton's b.s. slides right off me. The only
> danger they have posed to me and my expressing my point of view i
> is that by laughing so hard I forget what a deadly serious this issue is.
NO one is presenting any danger to you or your right to experss your
hatemongering and bigoted opinions.
The ONLY danger is that which we egalitarians constantly pose to
your AGENDAS by **exposing** them for the clueless hate-agendas that
they are.
As for abortion... it's merely a valuable REMEDY. Not an "issue."
And not in the LEAST deadly serious unless the right to ACCESS it is
threatened. THAT would be deadly serious to millions of women and
freedom-loving people everywhere.
-- Craig Chilton xana...@mchsi.com
Chris
I see. YOU are the arbiter of what is and is not "on topic" here. Let's not
forget WHO introduced "bigots" and "egalitarian defender of individual
liberties". But since we're on the topic, let's NOT discuss it.
Mizzyandrea
Abortion Related Legal Terms
(from Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed., 1990)
Child; Children. Progeny; offspring of parentage. UNBORN or recently
born human being. Wilson v. Weaver, 358 F.Supp. 1147, 1154. . . . .
Rights of UNBORN child. The rights of an unborn child are recognized
in various different legal contexts; e.g. in criminal law, murder
includes the unlawful killing of a fetus (Cal.Penal Code §187), and
the law of property considers the unborn child in being for all
purposes which are to its benefit, such as taking by will or
decent....
********************************************
Abortion is legal........ because an embryo isn't a human being. Human beings
cannot surrive being frozen.
It's as simple as that.........
YOU can speal off all the mumbo jumbo you want but Roe is intact......... ha
ha
Mizzyandrea
Eww!!!! FEMINAZI ALERT.
*********************************
That's what dickless little turd muffins say when it's clear that they have
lost the argument.......it's VERY clear since abortion is legal and destined
to remain so.
Mizzyandrea
That's funny. Here, we some half-wit, spermless wonder in New Zealand
(YOU) who opines the insignificance of the dangers of pregnancy, as if
he knows what the fuck he's talking about.
Yeah........the load of shit he totes in his inflated gut may LOOK like a
fucking pregnancy, but it aint.......
Mizzyandrea
***************************
Oh......the CUCKster is pretending to be amused.
WELL, here's the funny part......abortion is legal and there aint a fucking
thing you can do about it, Mr Pus Face!
n...@spam.com
Wow. That's wishful thinking on your part.
I can't think why anyone would be interested in the opinion of someone as
deluded as you.
> And not in the LEAST deadly serious unless the right to ACCESS it is
> threatened. THAT would be deadly serious to millions of women and
> freedom-loving people everywhere.
It takes millions of bodies to achieve your "freedom".
n...@spam.com
>
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 23:53:27 +0000,
> Anonymous Loser who hasn't the courage of his
> convictions to put his name to his hate-postings,
> "n...@spam.com," wrote:
> > Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >> Anonymous Loser who hasn't the courage of his
> >> convictions to put his name to his hate-postings,
> >> "n...@spam.com," wrote:
>
> > I bet you're just miffed because you can't harrass me by email.
>
> Yeah. Like I'd really waste my time doing something like that.
> Sorry to disappoint you, but I wage my debating publicly, so that
> everyone can see my opponents reduce to dog meat by the FACTS
> they can't disprove.
Sheez. What definition of 'fact' are you using?
>
> Furthermore, you could use your real name, and either a phony
> e-mail address -- or a hotmail one -- and THEN at least demonstrate
> that you have the courage of your convictions. As things stand
> now, you're merely a bigoted COWARD.
My name is BZZZZZZZZZZZT BLEEPSHSHSHHSSSHSHSHHSSSSSHSSS.
Did you get that?
I speak for me. No one else. And I've presented facts to support my
position often. All you have to offer is your bigoted OPINION on the
opposition. I need no such exaggerated nonsense when I say you're a
arrogant, deluded, bigoted twit.
n...@spam.com
All I have to say is this:
Just as you've seen no "facts" I've seen repeatedly your attitude towards
the true facts of pregnancy and human development - which most people
understand (the only people who don't are radical abortion fanatics like
you).
>
> >> There are freaks in this issue, all right. And they ALL are on YOUR
> >> side of it. JUST as all the freaks in the Civil Rights issue, 40 years
> >> ago were the segregationists. SAME mindless bigotry. SAME loathesome
> >> hatefulness. SAME totally unjustifiable agenda having NO supporting
> >> facts. Only the TARGETS were different: blacks then, and women, now.
> >>
> >> And just before the segregationist agenda became extinct, its...
>
> > Thanks to the Republican Party, originally formed for just that purpose.
>
> Nice try! The Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and '65 were promoted and
> supported by JFK and LBJ -- both DEMOCRATS. And today's Republican
> Party doesn't give a flying rat's ass for SEVERAL valuable individual
> liberties.
Oh? It's the only party that opposes taxpayer funding of schools segrated
by sexual orientation. What you call "liberties" are really hypocritical PC
initiatives and benefits for a select few.
>
> >> ...adherents had become America's National Laughingstock.
>
> > Actually America's National Laughingstock are the radical feminists in
> > their Women's Studies departments who think they know better than
> > everyone else in society, lecturing them on what women and children
> > really need and even what they (lesbians) think men should be.
>
> Whine, whine whine. "Radical" feminists. YAWNN-n-n-n-n-n-n-n-n.
Oh. So you see no problem with this:
"How will the family unit be destroyed? ...[T]he demand alone will throw
the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin
establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight
collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become
economically independent, either through a job or welfare." -Roxanne Dunbar
in "Female Liberation"
___________________________________________________________
"Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. Rape,
originally defined as abduction, became marriage by capture. Marriage
meant the taking was to extend in time, to be not only use of but
possession of, or ownership." (Andrea Dworkin)
___________________________________________________________
"In a patriarchal society all heterosexual intercourse is rape because
women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent" --
Catherine MacKinnon in "Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales From The
Strange World of Women's Studies"
___________________________________________________________
"No woman should be authorised to stay at home and raise her children.
Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice,
precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make
that one."
Simone de Beauvoir
>
> > As if any man gonna want to impress a bunch of corrupt, bitter old hags
> > like them.
>
> A woman stands up for her rights as an EQUAL in our society, and
> YOUR ilk therefore regard them to be "corrupt and bitter old hags."
Radical feminists are not for equality. If they were they'd support the
VAMA as well as VAWA (Violence Against Women Act).
Problem with radical feminists is that they see only women as people. You
could say of them, "Equality is for women only".
[...]
Craig Chilton
convictions to put his name to his hate-postings,
"n...@spam.com," wrote:
>> Anonymous Loser who hasn't the courage of his
>> convictions to put his name to his hate-postings,
>> "n...@spam.com," wrote:
>>> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>> Anonymous Loser who hasn't the courage of his
>>>> convictions to put his name to his hate-postings,
>>>> "n...@spam.com," wrote:
>>> I bet you're just miffed because you can't harrass me by email.
>> Yeah. Like I'd really waste my time doing something like that.
>> Sorry to disappoint you, but I wage my debating publicly, so that
>> everyone can see my opponents reduce to dog meat by the FACTS
>> they can't disprove.
> Sheez. What definition of 'fact' are you using?
Truth. Something you constantly prove you have NO use for.
>> Furthermore, you could use your real name, and either a phony
>> e-mail address -- or a hotmail one -- and THEN at least demonstrate
>> that you have the courage of your convictions. As things stand
>> now, you're merely a bigoted COWARD.
> My name is BZZZZZZZZZZZT BLEEPSHSHSHHSSSHSHSHHSSSSSHSSS.
>
> Did you get that?
Sure did. It's some foreign-language word that translates
in English precisely to: "Lily-livered Abject Coward."
>>>>> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "Mizzyandrea" <mizzy...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
>>>>>>>> Mizzyandrea -- even though I, personally, don't happen to
>>>>>>>> employ language that is as graphic as yours in my own posts,
>>>>>>>> you have hit the nail PRECISELY on the head with the above,
>>>>>>>> and made very CLEAR the hatefulness and the idiocy of the
>>>>>>>> Anti-Choicers.
>>>>>>> I'm a nurse and my knowledge of medicine tends to creep its way
>>>>>>> into my verbiage... I do feel that I can get my point across and still
>>>>>>> act like a lady. I'm glad you appreciate my observations.
>>>>>> "Appreciate" them is an understatement!! You are doing a
>>>>>> PHENOMENAL job of exposing the hypocrisies and hatefulness
>>>>>> pf the Anti-Choicers!
>>>>> Oops. That means she's doing a very BAD job...... LMAO
>>>> In YOUR warped opinion. I wouldn't have it any other way. The
>>>> LAST thing we who are egalitarian freedom-fighters would ever want
>>>> to see is our opposition being in AGREEMENT with us. If that
>>>> happened, we'd THEN know that we were NOT dfoing our job right.
>>> Ok, if that's the easiest way to convince you that you're wrong:
>>>
>>> I AGREE WITH YOU.
>>>
>>> Gee, I only wish I learned that 100 posts ago.
>> Anti-Choicers just love to make complete fools of themselves.
>>
>> You never disappoint.
>>
>> ROTFL!!!
> I speak for me. No one else. And I've presented facts to support my
> position often.
Bullcrap!! CITE one!
> All you have to offer is your bigoted OPINION on the opposition.
Abortion opponents PROVE their ignorance and their hatefulness
constantly via thei support for an agenda that seeks to impose
IMMENSE hardship upon no fewer than tens of MILLIONS
of women by FORCING childbirth upon them. AGAINST their will.
Resulting in the DENIAL of their rights... their RELEGATION to
second-class-citizen status... their INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE to
mere, NON-sentient developing entities which are, in all important
ways, equivalent to sperm and ova (human, unique, NON-sentient,
a stage of development without which NO births would occur --
and alive); entities which the WOMEN would very properly, under
the circumstances, regard to be parasitic. Further manifestations of
that hardship would be the DISRUPTION of their well-being, both
short-term and long-term (as in, for decades or a lifetime)... and
the DESTRUCTION of countless of their opportunities.
Any opinions that I have of you and your ilk therefore are
FACT-based. You SUPPORT that heinous, loathesome, and
ignorant agenda. Therefore, you ARE a hateful and ignorant
person.
> I need no such exaggerated nonsense when I say you're a
> arrogant, deluded, bigoted twit.
Since I'm a fair-minded egalitarian who works to PREVENT the
abuse of women that you advocate, those terms obviously have
no application to me -- but fit YOU perfectly.
-- Craig Chilton xana...@mchsi.com
Lawrence E. McKnight
[snip...
>
>Does that include the individual liberty to choose whether or not to send
>one's child to government school, and the individual liberty to KEEP all of
>one's earned income, and the individual liberty to maintain possession of
>one's private property without being forced to give the government people
>one thin dime, and the individual liberty to refuse service to anyone within
>one's private business, and the individual liberty of a landlord to refuse
>to rent to anyone that he so chooses?
>
Are these 'rights' things that you think should be rights, or are you
trolling?
[snip..
Larry
(this space unintentially left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
Craig Chilton
convictions to put his name to his hate-postings,
"n...@spam.com," wrote:
> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> Anonymous Loser who hasn't the courage of his
>> convictions to put his name to his hate-postings,
>> "n...@spam.com," wrote:
[ ... ]
[ ... ]
No. That's a fact.
> I can't think why anyone would be interested in the opinion of
> someone as deluded as you.
ROTFL!!!! That's what the segregationists used to say to the Civil
Rights workers. Note how THAT turned out. The same fate is in store
for the equally-clueless, hateful, and bigoted Anti-Choicers.
>> And not in the LEAST deadly serious unless the right to ACCESS it is
>> threatened. THAT would be deadly serious to millions of women and
>> freedom-loving people everywhere.
> It takes millions of bodies to achieve your "freedom".
In your very warped IMAGINATION, only.
Talk about people who are DELUDED!!
ROTFL!!!!
-- Craig Chilton xana...@mchsi.com
Mizzyandrea
***********************
what bodies? the average abortion withdraws about a tablespoon full of
material that looks like a bloody loogie.....leave it out in open air, it
dries and flakes away like the boogers you wipe on the side of your car
seat.......
there's no "bodies"......
so stop whining
Mizzyandrea
could say of them, "Equality is for women only".
***************************
the problem with walking pus oozing inflamed hemorrhoids is they reek from the
shit that passes thru their lips.......
Abortion is legal because women have a right to govern our own
bodies........don't like it?....... go suck a bucket of snots, you imbecile.
Chris
"Lawrence E. McKnight" <lawrence.del...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message news:4mngiv046i2j7rtva...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 23:25:00 -0700, "Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> [snip...
> >
> >Does that include the individual liberty to choose whether or not to send
> >one's child to government school, and the individual liberty to KEEP all
of
> >one's earned income, and the individual liberty to maintain possession of
> >one's private property without being forced to give the government people
> >one thin dime, and the individual liberty to refuse service to anyone
within
> >one's private business, and the individual liberty of a landlord to
refuse
> >to rent to anyone that he so chooses?
> >
>
>
> Are these 'rights' things that you think should be rights, or are you
> trolling?
I believe I was referring to liberties.
MyTwoAngels
> Craig Chilton wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 23:53:27 +0000,
> > Anonymous Loser who hasn't the courage of his
> > convictions to put his name to his hate-postings,
> > "n...@spam.com," wrote:
> > > Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > >> Anonymous Loser who hasn't the courage of his
> > >> convictions to put his name to his hate-postings,
> > >> "n...@spam.com," wrote:
>
> > > I bet you're just miffed because you can't harrass me by email.
> >
> > Yeah. Like I'd really waste my time doing something like that.
> > Sorry to disappoint you, but I wage my debating publicly, so that
> > everyone can see my opponents reduce to dog meat by the FACTS
> > they can't disprove.
>
> Sheez. What definition of 'fact' are you using?
Certianly not YOUR definition. You wouldn't notice a fact even if
were to hit you square in the balls.
> > Furthermore, you could use your real name, and either a phony
> > e-mail address -- or a hotmail one -- and THEN at least demonstrate
> > that you have the courage of your convictions. As things stand
> > now, you're merely a bigoted COWARD.
>
> My name is BZZZZZZZZZZZT BLEEPSHSHSHHSSSHSHSHHSSSSSHSSS.
>
> Did you get that?
In other words, you're Stupid.
Unless you're compelling women to give birth.
> And I've presented facts to support my
> position often.
No, you've just offered your opinions and no facts to prove your
claims.
> All you have to offer is your bigoted OPINION on the
> opposition.
What irony.
> I need no such exaggerated nonsense when I say you're a
> arrogant, deluded, bigoted twit.
Rather, you need to boldly lie.
Mizzyandrea
> position often.<<
No, you've just offered your opinions and no facts to prove your
claims.
***************************************
The "facts" are on the side of CHOICE.......
have you noticed that NOT ONE of them has taken on the issue of frozen embryos?
If an embryo is the SAME as an infant, why can't we freeze an infant for a
month?
.......they go silent with that one.
The fact is, we can freeze embryos because they are NOT human beings.......
that's a fact that science accepts as does the laws of the land.
These women-haters do not get away with a thing....... we're wise to their
lies.