Pro-Life Movement: Cowardly and Socialist
biniohas
For over three decades the pro life movement has failed to abolish
legalized abortion in the USA. A detailed analysis of the present
strategies being implemented by the pro life movement will show you
that the pro life movement will continue to fail. This unremitting
failure to abolish legalized abortion is resulting in a de facto
theology that makes God look like He cares more about laws that He did
not make than He cares about people that He did make. Only a fool would
believe in such a god.
The title of this article spotlights a startling possibility. Is it
possible that people like the ones who make up the pro life movement,
people who truly believe themselves to be the champions of God on
earth, can actually be doing things that literally destroy people's
ability to know and believe in the God revealed in Holy Scripture?
The Lord Jesus Christ made it clear that people could say all the right
things about God yet do things that make them the enemies of God. He
said in Matthew 23:2, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses'
seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and
do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not."
This article marshals documentary evidence that proves the accusation
symbolized in the picture above. The pro life movement is composed of
today's Scribes and Pharisees because they say they love unborn babies
but the things they do protect only themselves while little babies they
claim to love are daily butchered around them. The documentary evidence
contained in this article leads to an inescapable conclusion: Unless
the pro life movement is replaced by a movement that creates a de facto
theology demonstrating the power rather than the impotence of God, the
pro life movement will destroy the faith.
DE FACTO THEOLOGY
To put the evidence in this article in focus it is necessary to
understand de facto theology. When Jesus was talking about the scribes
and Pharisees in the verse above, He was explaining that people's
actions, as well as people's words, make up their witness, their
testimony, about God. Furthermore, Jesus was clearly implying that
when there is a discrepancy between words and actions, actions speak
louder than words in defining what people really believe, and no matter
what people say, their actions prove what they really believe. That is
exactly what de facto theology looks like. When people say one thing
about God, but their actions tell a different story about God, then the
actions of the people will create a de facto theology that provides
their actual witness to others about God.
TODAY'S STRATEGY IS NOTHING BUT A REPLAY OF THE FAILED STRATEGIES OF
THE PAST
2006 is a signal year for the pro life movement in America. For the
past two years prior to this date, the Pro Life movement has invested
massive amounts of money, human energy and time into a strategy that is
supposed to overturn Roe v. Wade and return abortion to the outlaw
status it had for the entire history of the USA until this present
generation came along.
The strategy consisted of a State or States passing laws opposing
abortion and those laws then being taken to the Supreme Court which
would, according to the strategy theory,overturn Roe v. Wade thereby
outlawing abortion as it had been in 1973.
You can see the political capital and power the pro life movement
invested in the strategy when you realize that by 2006 every State in
the nation had anti-abortion legislation either established or under
way. Twenty-six states had laws banning abortion after three months of
pregnancy. Legislation underway in four states, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Indiana and Ohio, would have banned abortions entirely
unless the mother's life was clearly in danger, with Alabama, Georgia
and Louisiana moving to quickly follow suit.
Imagine the kind of massive grass roots political effort it takes to
move the majority of a State legislature to pass legislation that
effectively countermands a law the federal government of the USA,
through the agency of the Supreme Court, has decreed to be a
Constitutionally protected right and you will see the massive energy
the pro life movement invested in this strategy. Millions of dollars
were poured into the political strategy and millions of people at the
State level had been marshaled to support the legislation in those
States or it would have been impossible for State politicians to
support the legislation without committing political suicide.
In summary, 2006 must be seen to be a milestone in the pro life
movement because never since the passage of Roe v. Wade had so much
political power been marshaled by the pro life movement in an attempt
to overturn Roe v. Wade.
And the strategy has all the appearances of a powerful movement. In
response, the pro abortion forces were quick to marshal their forces to
overcome the threat ostensibly being created by the pro life movement.
Warning flags of dire events began to be flown by all the forces of
abortion. Nancy Keenan, president of the National Abortion Rights
Action League's [NARAL]Pro-Choice America said to Reuters news agency,
"I think [Roe vs. Wade] in the short term will be dismantled. We have
an anti-choice president, an anti-choice Congress and now ... with the
confirmation of Judge Alito to the Supreme Court, we are seeing the
potential for a very right-leaning, anti-choice Supreme Court." NARAL
followed up their warning by begging their faithful for money, "This
morning, South Dakotans launched an effort to repeal their state's
outrageous abortion ban -- but we need your help to make it happen!"
NARAL screamed.
NARAL was joined by the entire abortion industry. In response to the
South Dakota legislation, the National Organization for Women sent out
an SOS, "The times are urgent and we must act!...This is exactly the
fight that right-wing zealots have been itching for -- a chance to
reverse Roe and once again seize control of women's bodies and lives.
Almost in concert, other states are introducing their own bans,
including Mississippi, which moved forward with similar legislation
last week. If the South Dakota ban makes it to the Supreme Court, our
two new justices will have the opportunity to vote to reverse Roe. If
they do, every Senator who failed to filibuster the Supreme Court
nomination of Sam Alito to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, and every
Senator who voted to confirm Roberts, will share responsibility for
what follows..." NOW moaned.
If NARAL and NOW were so agitated, you can imagine the kind of screams
coming from Planned Parenthood.
Money and volunteers began to pour into both the pro life and the pro
abortion coffers as American society waited to see dramatic political
events unfold.
THE STRATEGY WAS A PAPER TIGER WITH NEVER A REASONABLE CHANCE OF
SUCCESS
There was only one thing preventing that dramatic battle from
unfolding: there was never reasonable basis for expecting that the
Supreme Court, as it was constituted in 2006, would overturn Roe v.
Wade. The evidence provided below will prove that any reasonable person
would have known in advance that the strategy the Pro Life movement is
currently investing all its resources into was destined to fail because
the identical strategy had been implemented by the Pro Life movement
about 20 years ago and had not only failed to abolish legalized
abortion but had, in fact, greased the slippery slope of legalized
abortion that consumed such a ghastly number of unborn babies over the
past twenty years that it is obscene to print the number.
Anybody who had actually listened to what the people sitting on the
Supreme Court had said about legalized abortion would have seen that
the political strategy being implemented by the pro life movement in
2006 was doomed to failure. There was not a snowball's chance in hell
that Roe v. Wade would be overturned. Stare Decisis would intone its
death knell for the pro life strategy in 2006 just as it had intoned
its death knell for every pro life offensive since 1973.
THE CURSE OF STARE DECISIS
This is the meaning found in any English dictionary:
Main Entry: sta·re de·ci·sis
Pronunciation: "ster-E-di-'sI-s&s, "star-, "stär-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, to stand by decided matters
: a doctrine or policy of following rules or principles laid down in
previous judicial decisions unless they contravene the ordinary
principles of justice
I'll let the Supreme Court explain stare decisis to you. Read what they
say and you'll begin to see why I call stare decisis a curse.
Writing for the Supreme Court majority in an abortion case that this
article will examine in detail,Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S.
833 (1992),the court explained stare decisis: "While we appreciate the
weight of the arguments made on behalf of the State in the cases before
us, arguments which in their ultimate formulation conclude that Roe
should be overruled, the reservations any of us may have in reaffirming
the central holding of Roe are outweighed by the explication of
individual liberty we have given, combined with the force of stare
decisis. We turn now to that doctrine [stare decisis, author]. [505
U.S. 833, 854]
The Court explained the power of state decisis, "The obligation to
follow precedent begins with necessity, and a contrary necessity marks
its outer limit. With Cardozo, we recognize that no judicial system
could do society's work if it eyed each issue afresh in every case that
raised it. See B. Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process 149
(1921). Indeed, the very concept of the rule of law underlying our own
Constitution requires such continuity over time that a respect for
precedent is, by definition, indispensable. See Powell, Stare Decisis
and Judicial Restraint, 1991 Journal of Supreme Court History 13, 16.
At the other extreme, a different necessity would make itself felt if a
prior judicial ruling should come to be seen so clearly as error that
its enforcement was, for that very reason, doomed.
The Court continued, "Even when the decision to overrule a prior case
is not, as in the rare, latter instance, virtually foreordained, it is
common wisdom that the rule of stare decisis is not an 'inexorable
command...' Rather, when this Court reexamines a prior holding, its
judgment is customarily informed by a series of prudential and
pragmatic considerations designed to test the consistency of overruling
a prior decision with the ideal of the rule of law, and to gauge the
respective costs of reaffirming and overruling a prior case.
The Court concluded its explanation of stare decisis, "So in this case,
we may enquire whether Roe's central rule has been found unworkable;
whether the rule's limitation on State power could be removed without
serious inequity to those who have relied upon it or significant damage
to the stability of the society governed by it; whether the law's
growth in the intervening years has left Roe's central rule a doctrinal
anachronism discounted by society; and whether Roe's premises of fact
have so far changed in the ensuing two decades as to render its central
holding somehow irrelevant or unjustifiable in dealing with the issue
it addressed."
Remember the previous paragraph because every Supreme Court decision
concerning abortion in the future will have to deal with the criteria
defined there. Especially note that the Supreme Court has defined the
conditions under which stare decisis could be overruled by the court;
namely,"...if a prior judicial ruling [Roe v. Wade]should come to be
seen so clearly as error that its enforcement was, for that very
reason, doomed."
Do you think that legalized abortion has come to be seen so clearly as
error that its enforcement is, for that very reason, doomed? If
legalized abortion has come to be seen so clearly as error, then why
will several thousand people kill their babies today? Obviously a huge
percentage of the people of the USA do not believe legalized abortion
is error. According to stare decisis, the Supreme Court is obligated to
wait until society admits legalized abortion is wrong before overruling
Roe v. Wade.
Do you think the Bush appointees to the Supreme Court have a different
attitude toward stare decisis? If so, you have never listened to what
they told the United States Congress and the American people who
listened to them during their confirmation process to the Supreme
Court. Listen now and you will see...
What the Bush Appointees to the Supreme Court Have to Say About Stare
Decisis
You can see the importance to the future of Roe v. Wade of the two
recent Bush Administration appointees to the Supreme Court, Judges John
Roberts and Samuel Alito,by remembering what the spokesperson for NARAL
said about them, "If the South Dakota ban makes it to the Supreme
Court, our two new justices will have the opportunity to vote to
reverse Roe."
Anyone who actually listened to what John Roberts said about stare
decisis would have known Roe v. Wade was not slated to be overturned by
that man's vote.
Prior to his confirmation as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Judge
Roberts was publicly questioned by the Senate Judicial Committee. At
one point, he was asked to explain the importance of prior Supreme
Court decisions to the rule of law. Roberts answered, "It's settled
as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of
stare decisis."
Then Senator Arlen Specter, the Chairman of the Judicial Committee
asked Roberts to explain the 1992 Supreme Court ruling in Planned
Parenthood v. Casey . Roberts stated that he believed that,in addition
to the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, Planned Parenthood v. Casey had to be
considered before arriving at any decision about the legality of
abortion.When asked to summarize the significance of Planned Parenthood
v. Casey, Roberts replied, "It reaffirmed the central holding in Roe
v. Wade."
Sen. Specter pressed Roberts on whether the abortion ruling was settled
law for him--established only for an appellate judge such as he or
"settled beyond that." Roberts answered, "Well, beyond that,
it's settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under
principles of stare decisis. And those principles, applied in the Casey
case, explain when cases should be revisited and when they should
not." Roberts concluded.
In that answer Roberts was referring to the earlier section I quoted
from the majority opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Roberts was
stating specifically that he understood that the principles about when
cases like Roe v. Wade should be revisited by the Supreme Court had
been defined by Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and, furthermore, he was
saying he that those principles were "settled."
Think about the meaning of the word settled. Merriam-Webster dictionary
says settled means: "1 : to place so as to stay."
Anyone actually paying attention to what Roberts was saying would have
to conclude that the rules of logic require his answer to be
interpreted so that he was saying, as clearly as words can be said,
that the precedent established in Planned Parenthood v. Casey was
settled so that it was to stay in place.
And what was the precedent established in Planned Parenthood v. Casey?
It was exactly the same precedent established in Roe v. Wade: The right
to abortion is a Constitutional right granted to every expectant mother
in the United States of America.
Roberts also told Sen. Dianne Feinstein, another member of the Senate
Judicial Committee, that he would judge any challenge to Roe v. Wade
according to the principle of stare decisis. Amplifying what he meant,
Roberts cited the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and said that it
would be included in his deliberations if a case challenging the
landmark case came before him. He said, "Well, that determination in
Casey becomes one of the precedents of the court, entitled to respect
like any other precedent of the court, under principles of stare
decisis," Roberts said.
Many people were confused about John Roberts because they heard that
Roberts had, earlier in his career, rejected the idea that legalized
abortion was based on a right to privacy Sen. Specter questioned
Roberts on that precise point. Specter noted that Roberts had early in
his career dismissed Roe v. Wade's holding that the right to abortion
is grounded in what he termed "the so-called right to privacy." Then
Specter asked, "So they weren't necessarily your views then and they
certainly aren't your views now?"
"I think that's fair, yes," Roberts replied. "The right to privacy is
protected under the Constitution in various ways," Roberts said, citing
the First, Third and Fourth amendments as well as 80 years of
precedent.
Judge Roberts own words make it clear he has no intention to overrule
stare decisis in his future rulings on legalized abortion.
Is Judge Alito any different?
WHAT JUDGE ALITO TOLD SENATORS WHEN HE WAS QUESTIONED ABOUT STARE
DECISIS...
· Judge Alito reassured Senator Mark Pryor (D-AK) that he believed in
the importance of stare decisis, the legal principle that fosters
stability in the law by requiring respect for precedent. [Arkansas
Democrat Gazette, 11/4/05]
· Judge Alito also told Robert Byrd (D-WV) he had strong support for
stare decisis. [US Fed News, 11/3/05]
· Judge Alito told Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) that Roe v. Wade
is precedent which many people have relied upon and deserves great
respect. [Associated Press, 11/9/05]
· Judge Alito conveyed to Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) that he has
tremendous respect for precedent. [Associated Press, 11/9/05]
And there you have the evidence the pro life movement uses to sound
their victory trumpets. How can anyone actually listen to what both
Alito and Roberts have to say about Roe v. Wade and stare decisis and
then conclude they can be depended on to overturn Roe v. Wade? There is
only one way. The person has to be either a self-conscious liar or a
self-deluded liar. Either way, the facts require them to be seen to be
a liar of some sort. The fact is neither Alito or Roberts have said one
word in public that can be used as a factual basis for believing either
of them will vote to even hear an attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade much
less vote to overturn it.
The pro life strategy today is a repeat of a strategy that failed 20
years ago
In 2006, South Dakota was the first of a series of State legislatures
that attempted to outlaw, or aggressively restrict, abortion in their
States. Pro life leaders across the nation heralded the South Dakota
legislation outlawing abortion as evidence that Roe v. Wade was in
imminent danger of being abolished.
Strangely no one within the pro life movement seemed to notice that
exactly that same strategy had been implemented in the mid 1980's and,
not only had failed abysmally to overturn Roe v. Wade, but had provided
a crystal clear legal precedent that defined exactly why no State
legislature could be expected to overturn legalized abortion in the
future. I refer to the pro life debacle called Planned Parenthood v.
Casey.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey Revisited
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, (505 U.S. 833
1992) was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in
which the constitutionality of several Pennsylvania State regulations
regarding abortion was challenged. The case not only upheld legalized
abortion in the USA but became the bedrock upon which future cases
involving a State's attempt to restrict legalized abortion would have
to be measured.
In 2006, in the face of the precedent established by Planned Parenthood
v. Casey, for the pro life movement to think that South Dakota or South
Carolina or Mississippi or any other State could implement exactly the
same strategy and provide hope for arresting legalized abortion
demonstrates that more than ordinary wishful thinking is motivating the
pro life movement but actual delusional thinking has become the
operating environment for the pro life movement.
To show you how deeply committed to this delusional thinking the pro
life movement has become, this article was the only voice raised that
attempted to point out how deluded the pro life movement has become.
TIME FACTOR MEANS THE PRO LIFE MOVEMENT HAS CREATED A STRATEGY THAT
GUARANTEES MILLIONS OF BABIES WILL BE LEGALLY BUTCHERED
Examine the process being set in motion by the government of South
Dakota and the other States like Georgia who plan to emulate her
actions and you will see not the imminent overthrow of legalized
abortion but the means through which legalized abortion will become
institutionalized forever in the USA.
The consequences of the South Dakota legislation can be examined on
both the State and the federal level. At the State level,the South
Dakota abortion ban is not to take effect until July 1, 2006. That
means that, even though a law has ostensibly been passed prohibiting
abortion,today abortion continues in South Dakota as it has for the
last 33 years. Furthermore, legal challenges under South Dakota law
coupled with a possible petition drive to put it on the ballot could
delay the law being enforced in South Dakota for up to three years. So
at the State level the South Dakota legislation cannot even become law
in South Dakota for up to three years...and that is if there was no way
to appeal the South Dakota legislation to the federal Supreme Court.
But of course no State law can go into effect if it is seen by the
Supreme Court to violate the federal Constitution. No one suggests the
South Dakota legislation will go into effect until after the Supreme
Court has ruled on its Constitutionality. Even the most optimistic pro
lifer admits it will take years before the South Dakota legislation is
argued before the Supreme Court.
In summary, the South Dakota legislation has no chance whatsoever of
deterring even one abortion for several years, if ever.
So there you have it. The pro life movement has created a strategy that
makes it inevitable that legalized abortion will continue for years and
not one single baby's death will be prevented by that strategy.
Is it not obvious now that the people who are involved in creating the
idea that Roe v. Wade is being threatened by the actions being taken by
South Dakota and other States are liars? Whether they are deceived
themselves, or self-conscious deceivers, is irrelevant because the end
result is the same either way: they lie, thereby creating a false hope
for change; and in the creation of that false hope, instead of
defending those appointed to destruction, they literally grease the
skids for the destruction of the people they claim to be trying to
protect.
PROLIFERS DENY EVERYTHING IN THIS ARTICLE AND CONTEND THAT THE NEW
APPOINTEES WILL OVERTURN ROE V. WADE
Even if they are right, the strategy the pro life movement has invested
in cannot work itself out for YEARS. Now think about the significance
of choosing a strategy that, even if it turns out to be the solution to
legalized abortion in the USA (which if you have been reading this
article you will know is considered by this writer to a pipe dream even
the most brain addled opium addict would dismiss out of hand) the
strategy will ensure that literally millions of unborn babies will be
legally butchered in this nation. Now think about that. The group that
is allegedly committed to protecting unborn babies from death--the pro
life movement--commits all its political influence and all its money to
a strategy that, even if everything works out the very best way
possible, absolutely guarantees that approximately 1.3 million babies
will be sacrificed each year during the approximately five years it
will take for the strategy to reach the point of final decision.
Does that speak volumes about the pro life movement? How could any
group of people who claimed to be called by God to stop the slaughter
of innocent human beings willingly decide to invest themselves in a
strategy that offered virtually no real chance of protecting the babies
anytime in the future but absolutely guaranteed the continued slaughter
of the people in the present? The only way they could issue such a
claim is to decide they did not care what kind of de facto theology
they were creating. Such people had to be willing to create an image of
God where God was seen to be willing to protect and reward His servants
who were born while at the same time accepting the legalized slaughter
of His unborn servants forever rather than cause His born servants to
risk their lives in defense of the unborn.
Could you expect people to continue to believe that such a god was
worthy of praise? Of worship? Of devotion?
Of course not. Such a god is worthy of nothing but the same thing the
people who create such a de facto image of god deserve: Scorn,
unmitigated and unremitting scorn. That is why the pro life movement is
well on its way to destroying the faith in this generation.
If you've read this article to this point, one thing should be obvious:
the leaders and followers of the pro life movement will absolutely
refuse to accept the evidence presented here. Because of all they have
invested in this present strategy, they will under no circumstances
refuse to push the strategy to its conclusion. But here is where the
really horrible part of this story comes in. The pro live movement has
done this entire strategy before. And look at what they did when the
strategy failed in the middle 1890's. They spent the next twenty years
preparing the resources to allow them to IMPLEMENT THE SAME FAILED
STRATEGY ALL OVER AGAIN! Do you see the horrible meaning of such
determined disregard of the facts? Do you see the kind of self-deluded
people who, in the face of the responsibility to stop the slaughter of
innocent unborn babies, will allow themselves to be seduced by Satan
into such self-serving delusion and double-mindedness? But the horror
story continues. What on earth is there to prevent this process going
on forever? Every twenty years the pro life movement invests several
million dollars and thousands of hours of volunteer work into another
round of utterly useless political machinations, and when it fails,
they continue to go about their business enjoying the fruits thrown
their way by the princes of this world who reward them for continuing
the delusion that people really believe there is a Creator out there
who Creates unborn babies. Then, twenty years down the road, they bring
another series of cases before the Supreme Court which are defeated
based on the doctrine of stare decisis, and the process goes on and on
just as it has continued for the past twenty years.
IS THERE NO HOPE?
Given the kind of determined self-delusion that is occurring in this
nation among both Christians and pagans, there is no reasonable basis
for expecting that people in this nation will actually be moved by the
information contained in this article to change anything at all. But
there is a reasonable basis to think that the day will come when the
Holy Spirit will break the blinders from His people's eyes. And He
certainly could use this article to help with that. Since we don't
expect anyone much to read this now, we're going to bury about one
hundred copies of this article in steel ammo cans like this one at
locations commonly scanned by GPS systems. We take real pleasure in
imagining how someday, maybe hundreds of years from now, when the faith
has apparently been banished from the planet forever, the Holy Spirit
will direct some person to dig up the can, read the article and--BAM,
WHAM--the Holy Spirit will zap him like He did Paul on the road to
Damascus and the faith that was seen to be dead will rise up to glorify
the Lord Jesus Christ as He deserves to be glorified.
But unless we want to wait for that day long in the future, the sooner
the True and Living God destroys the self-serving and deluded faux
Christian entity called the pro life movement, the better. Then maybe
God's people will get around to the only strategy with the power to
force this nation to restore God to His rightful place of authority in
this nation.
Neal Horsley, June 26, 2006
spar...@my-deja.com
> http://christiangallery.com/destroyingthefaith.html
[...]
christiangallery.com is owned by religious extremist Neal Horsely.
Paradoxically, his most famous quotation is "When you grow up on a farm
in Georgia, your first girlfriend is a mule."
vjp...@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com
I always felt a bit uncomfortable that many low-ranking adherents
to "Social Conservatism" were "Socialist Conservatives".
However, here's my solution: Your deed and voter records are public
record. Even leftist mayors think nothing wrong of publishing names of those
using prostitutes instead of costly incarceration. So, publish the names of
anyone having an abortion. Make all medical records public, for that
matter. Privacy and free speech are mutually exclusive. Swiss bank privacy
was invented in the 1930s to help the nazis. Euronazis love privacy, but it
contradicts the full-disclosure traditions of Anglo-Saxon democracy. Right
now, NYC unions will check if your are registered DumbOCluck before getting
you a job. So what's wrong in my checking if the teacher of my kids has had
an abortion or venerial disease?
Likewise, my solution to drugs is do ignore possession but prosecute the
consequences. If you kill someone while drunk or on drugs, you hang. If they
can have stronger sentences for using guns or "hate", then why not
drugs. Right now you have too many parents fearful they can't control their
kids (this is especially true of parents of MANY, as opposed to few, kids)
and wanting the grubmint to do it for them. If their kids hung for drugs,
they'ld get treatment. If you knew that if you took drugs and hurt someone,
you'ld hang, you'ld get treatment. This is the free-market way. Actually I'ld
write the law "If anyone is intoxicated when he injures someone and has been
convicted of two prior violent crimes, that person shall be executed."
I'd also add "The parent of a just born child shall be fully liable for
penalties for actions of that child. A child reaching the age of majority
shall be fully liable for penalties for child's own actions. In between,
there will be a sliding scale in proportion to the age of the offspring,
whereby the parent shall incur a greater share of the younger child's penalty
while the older child shall bear the greater portion of child's own penalty."
- = -
Vasos-Peter John Panagiotopoulos II, Reagan Mozart Pindus BioStrategist
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/vjp2/vasos.htm
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
[Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards]
[Yellary Clinton & Yellalot Spitzer: Nasty Together]
spar...@my-deja.com
> I always felt a bit uncomfortable that many low-ranking adherents
> to "Social Conservatism" were "Socialist Conservatives".
>
> However, here's my solution: Your deed and voter records are public
> record.
All the latter indicates is that you voted - *who* you voted for is
still private.
> Even leftist mayors think nothing wrong of publishing names of those
> using prostitutes instead of costly incarceration.
*All* criminal convictions are in the public record.
> So, publish the names of anyone having an abortion. Make all medical
> records public, for that matter.
Won't prevent a single abortion - women seeking abortions will simply
go underground. It *will* discourage people from seeking medical help.
Is that what you want?
> Privacy and free speech are mutually exclusive.
You're a loon.
Ray Fischer
>http://christiangallery.com/destroyingthefaith.html
>
>For over three decades the pro life movement has failed to abolish
>legalized abortion in the USA.
Because the anti-abortion "movement" has been utterly corrupted
by hate and lies. There is no truth to it anywhere, and only the
stupid and those prone to hatred will have anything to do with it.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
WCJ
>>For over three decades the pro life movement has failed to abolish
>>legalized abortion in the USA.
> Because the anti-abortion "movement" has been utterly corrupted
> by hate and lies. There is no truth to it anywhere, and only the
> stupid and those prone to hatred will have anything to do with it.
Very well said. The "pro-life" movement is full of hypocrites and
liars. By the way, it hurts to use the term "pro-LIFE" to describe
them, knowing that most of those nutcases couldn't care less about life
AFTER a baby is born; all they really are is pro-forced-birth--and
pro-forcing their supposed "morals" on others.
--
I'm pro-choice. And so is my mother.
www.cafepress.com/saproducts/802010
Help control the nut population.
Have conservatives spayed or neutered.
www.cafepress.com/saproducts/795012
Defend America. Impeach Bush.
www.cafepress.com/saproducts/1669078
Johnny
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:44d6ddfc$0$34547$742e...@news.sonic.net...
Why aren't you in it then, liar?
Why are you consumed by your hate of every person who is not like you?
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net
>
Johnny
"WCJ" <nos...@bogus.fake.com> wrote in message
news:bJBBg.5537$0e5...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>For over three decades the pro life movement has failed to abolish
>>>legalized abortion in the USA.
>
>> Because the anti-abortion "movement" has been utterly corrupted
>> by hate and lies. There is no truth to it anywhere, and only the
>> stupid and those prone to hatred will have anything to do with it.
>
> Very well said. The "pro-life" movement is full of hypocrites and liars.
Examples?
> By the way, it hurts to use the term "pro-LIFE" to describe them,
Because you can not use it for yourself since you are pro-Death?
> knowing that most of those nutcases couldn't care less about life AFTER a
> baby is born;
False assertion, enemy of the pre-born.
> all they really are is pro-forced-birth
How does someone force birth?
Abortion relies on force from an outside agency to terminate a pregnancy.
No outside agency employs force to kill a living human in birth, unless you
are a partial birth abortionist.
Abortion relies on force by an outside agency.
> -and pro-forcing their supposed "morals" on others.
Forcing morals on others how?
WCJ
>>>>For over three decades the pro life movement has failed to abolish
>>>>legalized abortion in the USA.
>>> Because the anti-abortion "movement" has been utterly corrupted
>>> by hate and lies. There is no truth to it anywhere, and only the
>>> stupid and those prone to hatred will have anything to do with it.
>> Very well said. The "pro-life" movement is full of hypocrites and liars.
> Examples?
You bet! For the former, how about the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of real,
living children awaiting adoption in the US right now? Of course, these
are not the cute, pink, cuddly "we must save the innocent BABIES!"
children of the so-called "pro-life" movement's literature and web
sites. No, indeed. These are older and special needs children--AIDS
and crack babies, kids with physical and emotional disabilities, kids
who've been abused by their biological parents, etc. Why haven't the
so-called pro-lifers broken down the doors of the orphanages and foster
homes where these kids are languishing and adopted them? One word:
HYPOCRITES.
Then there are the lies told by the so-called pro-life movement, such as
the distorted version of "science" they tell in order to make their
hysterical rhetoric sound credible. For example, they say a zygote or
very early term embryo can feel pain when--in fact (yes, I know, a
concept the so-called pro-lifers are unfamiliar with), it's IMPOSSIBLE
for that to happen. Without a certain degree of development of the CNS,
pain cannot be felt, registered, or anything else. But does this stop
them from spewing their bullshit? No. Why not? They're LIARS.
>> By the way, it hurts to use the term "pro-LIFE" to describe them,
> Because you can not use it for yourself since you are pro-Death?
I'm not surprised that the true meaning of that paragraph was lost on
you, i.e., that the so-called pro-lifers don't give a shit about other
people's babies AFTER they're born. But since you're too stupid to
understand that on your own, maybe this clarification will help.
As for being pro-death, that's just another example of the hysterics the
so-called pro-lifers rely on to attempt to discredit the other side.
Sorry! Doesn't work on me. For one thing, I am not pro-abortion, I'm
pro-choice--and those choices include other things besides abortion.
Secondly, on a personal level, when I was faced with an unwanted
pregnancy I CHOSE not to abort it. So take your hysterical name-calling
elsewhere because it has no impact on me.
>> knowing that most of those nutcases couldn't care less about life AFTER a
>> baby is born;
> False assertion, enemy of the pre-born.
Blah blah blah. Same old anti-choice rhetoric. But if you think that's
a false assertion, then perhaps you'd like to explain why the so-called
pro-lifers haven't adopted those hundreds of thousands of unwanted
children I mentioned earlier. Oh, wait! You can't. Fucking hypocrite.
>> all they really are is pro-forced-birth
> How does someone force birth?
Are you really that stupid? Criminalizing abortion will FORCE some
women to give birth (unless they're willing to have unsafe, unregulated,
illegal abortions). Got it? Or does your little pea-sized brain need
more clarification?
Ray Fischer
>
>"WCJ" <nos...@bogus.fake.com> wrote in message
>news:bJBBg.5537$0e5...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>For over three decades the pro life movement has failed to abolish
>>>>legalized abortion in the USA.
>>
>>> Because the anti-abortion "movement" has been utterly corrupted
>>> by hate and lies. There is no truth to it anywhere, and only the
>>> stupid and those prone to hatred will have anything to do with it.
>>
>> Very well said. The "pro-life" movement is full of hypocrites and liars.
>
>Examples?
What do you do to help children?
We already know: You bitch that children are getting taxpayer money
for food and education that you want for yourself.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>>>http://christiangallery.com/destroyingthefaith.html
>>>
>>>For over three decades the pro life movement has failed to abolish
>>>legalized abortion in the USA.
>>
>> Because the anti-abortion "movement" has been utterly corrupted
>> by hate and lies. There is no truth to it anywhere, and only the
>> stupid and those prone to hatred will have anything to do with it.
>
>Why aren't you in it then, liar?
Don't ask stupid questions, loser.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Johnny
> Johnny wrote:
>>>>>For over three decades the pro life movement has failed to abolish
>>>>>legalized abortion in the USA.
>
>>>> Because the anti-abortion "movement" has been utterly corrupted
>>>> by hate and lies. There is no truth to it anywhere, and only the
>>>> stupid and those prone to hatred will have anything to do with it.
>
>>> Very well said. The "pro-life" movement is full of hypocrites and
>>> liars.
>
>> Examples?
>
> You bet! For the former, how about the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of real,
> living children awaiting adoption in the US right now?
Whose babies are they?
> Of course, these are not the cute, pink, cuddly "we must save the innocent
> BABIES!" children of the so-called "pro-life" movement's literature and
> web sites. No, indeed. These are older and special needs children--AIDS
> and crack babies, kids with physical and emotional disabilities, kids
> who've been abused by their biological parents, etc.
What makes you think non-parents are supposed to love other persons'
children so much?
Are you going to fork over the cash for Pro-Lifers to take care of these
'problem' children you think Pro-Lifers are supposed to take care of?
> Why haven't the so-called pro-lifers broken down the doors of the
> orphanages and foster homes where these kids are languishing and adopted
> them?
One reason is because Pro-Lifers contribute to orphanages and their
contributions go to support these children already.
Another reason is because these children are not their children and because
they can not afford to take on another child in many instances.
When will you recognize that children are the responsibility of their
parents?
> One word: HYPOCRITES.
Nah. That would be Pro-Choicers who advocate killing children before they
are born, and Pro-Choicers such as you who think that Pro-Lifers are
supposed to take care of children who they never created.
> Then there are the lies told by the so-called pro-life movement, such as
> the distorted version of "science" they tell in order to make their
> hysterical rhetoric sound credible. For example, they say a zygote or
> very early term embryo can feel pain when--in fact (yes, I know, a concept
> the so-called pro-lifers are unfamiliar with), it's IMPOSSIBLE for that to
> happen. Without a certain degree of development of the CNS, pain cannot
> be felt, registered, or anything else. But does this stop them from
> spewing their bullshit? No. Why not? They're LIARS.
Pain? Who cares about your pain argument?
You can be anesthetized to the point that you feel no pain.
Would that warrant aborting you?
>>> By the way, it hurts to use the term "pro-LIFE" to describe them,
>
>> Because you can not use it for yourself since you are pro-Death?
>
> I'm not surprised that the true meaning of that paragraph was lost on you,
> i.e., that the so-called pro-lifers don't give a shit about other people's
> babies AFTER they're born. But since you're too stupid to understand that
> on your own, maybe this clarification will help.
>
> As for being pro-death, that's just another example of the hysterics the
> so-called pro-lifers rely on to attempt to discredit the other side.
> Sorry! Doesn't work on me. For one thing, I am not pro-abortion, I'm
> pro-choice
which includes abortion.
Your bullshit pablum terminology does not erase your Pro-Abortion side.
>--and those choices include other things besides abortion.
They include abortion.
> Secondly, on a personal level, when I was faced with an unwanted pregnancy
> I CHOSE not to abort it. So take your hysterical name-calling elsewhere
> because it has no impact on me.
So what?
I am not Pro-Choice,.
You are Pro-Choice.
>>> knowing that most of those nutcases couldn't care less about life AFTER
>>> a baby is born;
>
>> False assertion, enemy of the pre-born.
>
> Blah blah blah. Same old anti-choice rhetoric. But if you think that's a
> false assertion, then perhaps you'd like to explain why the so-called
> pro-lifers haven't adopted those hundreds of thousands of unwanted
> children I mentioned earlier.
I already did.
> Oh, wait! You can't. Fucking hypocrite.
Nah.
>>> all they really are is pro-forced-birth
>
>> How does someone force birth?
>
> Are you really that stupid? Criminalizing abortion will FORCE some women
> to give birth (unless they're willing to have unsafe, unregulated, illegal
> abortions).
Nah. It isn't FORCE. Abortion is what employs FORCE.
Disallowing abortion eliminates the FORCE that is used upon women and unborn
children in abortion.
> Got it?
I do not subscribe to your lies.
> Or does your little pea-sized brain need more clarification?
Force is not involved in disallowing abortion.
Force is involved in abortions and in Pro-Choice.
Ray Fischer
>
>"WCJ" <nos...@bogus.fake.com> wrote in message
>news:v2TBg.5950$0e5...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> Johnny wrote:
>>>>>>For over three decades the pro life movement has failed to abolish
>>>>>>legalized abortion in the USA.
>>
>>>>> Because the anti-abortion "movement" has been utterly corrupted
>>>>> by hate and lies. There is no truth to it anywhere, and only the
>>>>> stupid and those prone to hatred will have anything to do with it.
>>
>>>> Very well said. The "pro-life" movement is full of hypocrites and
>>>> liars.
>>
>>> Examples?
>>
>> You bet! For the former, how about the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of real,
>> living children awaiting adoption in the US right now?
>
>Whose babies are they?
Why does it matter? Do you only care about the children you don't
have to do anything for?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Johnny
> Johnny <wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>"WCJ" <nos...@bogus.fake.com> wrote in message
>>news:v2TBg.5950$0e5...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>> Johnny wrote:
>>>>>>>For over three decades the pro life movement has failed to abolish
>>>>>>>legalized abortion in the USA.
>>>
>>>>>> Because the anti-abortion "movement" has been utterly corrupted
>>>>>> by hate and lies. There is no truth to it anywhere, and only the
>>>>>> stupid and those prone to hatred will have anything to do with it.
>>>
>>>>> Very well said. The "pro-life" movement is full of hypocrites and
>>>>> liars.
>>>
>>>> Examples?
>>>
>>> You bet! For the former, how about the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of real,
>>> living children awaiting adoption in the US right now?
>>
>>Whose babies are they?
>
> Why does it matter?
Adopt them if it matters nothing to you; and stop berating persons who do
not adopt them.
> Do you only care about the children you don't
> have to do anything for?
I do not see you caring for any children.
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net
>
Ray Fischer
>>>"WCJ" <nos...@bogus.fake.com> wrote in message
>>>news:v2TBg.5950$0e5...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>> Johnny wrote:
>>>>>>>>For over three decades the pro life movement has failed to abolish
>>>>>>>>legalized abortion in the USA.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Because the anti-abortion "movement" has been utterly corrupted
>>>>>>> by hate and lies. There is no truth to it anywhere, and only the
>>>>>>> stupid and those prone to hatred will have anything to do with it.
>>>>
>>>>>> Very well said. The "pro-life" movement is full of hypocrites and
>>>>>> liars.
>>>>
>>>>> Examples?
>>>>
>>>> You bet! For the former, how about the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of real,
>>>> living children awaiting adoption in the US right now?
>>>
>>>Whose babies are they?
>>
>> Why does it matter?
>
>Adopt them if it matters nothing to you; and stop berating persons who do
>not adopt them.
Take your own advice, hypocrite.
>> Do you only care about the children you don't
>> have to do anything for?
>
>I do not see you caring for any children.
That's because you're stupid.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
