Text 13674, 124 rader
Skriven 2014-04-01 13:39:00 av TIM RICHARDSON (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av DAVID DRUMMOND
Ärende: Aganist Abortion
========================
On 04-01-14, DAVID DRUMMOND said to TIM RICHARDSON:


DD>On 31/03/14 11:10 PM, TIM RICHARDSON -> DAVID DRUMMOND wrote:


RW>> In the definition of 'baby' the second definition of baby listed
RW>> says; an unborn child, aka a fetus.


DD>> Of course it does - the "official" US version of English is constantly
DD>> altered to reflect incorrect common usage.


TR> Yeah...alter the meaning of words a bit, and over 50 million dead humans
TR> since Roe v Wade can be shrugged off.


DD>Who the fuck are they?


They are dead human babies.


TR> Jeez...the Nazis could have done that at the Nuremburg trials! `Six
TR> million Jews? Oh....Glockenschpiel! No such thing! They were offered TR>
`showers'!  they weren't gassed....they held their breath too long!'


DD>What about all of the Iraqi and Afghani kids killed in the the US wars in
DD>their countries?


What about the Islamic practice of placing military targets among their own
civilian population, such that any retaliatory strike by an enemy will take
out numbers of their own civilians.


They can then carry bodies covered with lots of blood, and with missing limbs
around in front of news cameras...with lots of wailing and mocked-up weeping,
so as to have the maximum detrimental effect on foreign press!


`Look at what those terrible Americans did'!


Also...notice how the leftist media, instead of exposing that little
propaganda for what it really is...goes right along with it!


These have been several helpless people (one of whom was a woman) forced to
the ground and savagely beheaded, ON camera, and the resulting video played
before the entire world! Two or more of these victims were Americans!


I don't see you raising a bitch about them!
DD>> Still doesn't alter the fact that a bloke has no right to tell a woman
DD>> what to do with her body and any parasites developing there-in.


TR> *IF* she's paying for her OWN birth control methods...and USING them...
TR> thats one thing.


DD>Abortion IS a birth control method.


*Abortion* is clear testimony that she doesn't have the brains or
responsibility to use an in-expensive PILL!


TR> But when they expect everybody ELSE to pay for it, thats something
TR> different.


DD>In this country medical procedures are subsidised by the public medical
DD>system.


Which is paid for by taxpayers!


TR> True...nobody can (or should be able to) tell a woman what she can do
TR> with her body.


TR> Actually, thats a silly argument because nobody is TRYING to tell women
TR> what to do with their bodies.


DD>Didn't Nathan suggest that she should carry the unwanted fetus to term in
DD>HER womb?


TR> It takes two to engage in sexual relations.


DD>Then why is an unwanted fetus always the woman's problem?


TR> BUT! There are so many methods of birth control out there it isn't even
TR> funny.


DD>Abortion is one of those.


Any woman who uses `abortion' for birth control, when there are so many, in-
expensive PILLS that will do it easier, can't be very smart to begin with.


Again! WHY do I and other taxpayers become responsible for paying for a
woman's birth control? Or for her abortion?


For that matter...any woman who's addle-headed enough to use `abortion' over
some pretty effective, far less expensive pills, as a `birth control',
probably isn't smart enough to make the decision to have sex in the first
place!


---
*Durango b301 #PE* 
 * Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)