"martin" > wrote in message
...
> tar~bal wrote:
>> "martin" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> JZ wrote:
>>>> In article >,
>>>> Michelle Steiner > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> JZ > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Baloney! A woman who has had an abortion is in no worse a mental
>>>>>>> state than any other woman.
>>>>>> I would heartily disagree. Any woman that doesn't feel guilt and
>>>>>> regret is just burying her true feelings or has a heart of stone.
>>>>> You can disagree all you want, but that doesn't change facts. Your
>>>>> condescending attitude towards women is disgusting.
>>>> How about your condescending attitude toward babies (as in not caring
>>>> if they live or die)? When you don't care about life itself, you can't
>>>> get more condescending than that. Its not about women. Its about
>>>> anybody that is stopping a fetus from being born. It can be a man
>>>> pressuring a woman to get an abortion because he doesn't want the
>>>> hassle of a baby in his life.
>>> How many women have you given $300,000 to in order to pay for and raise
>>> her baby? You lot are all the same, you don't care once it's born and
>>> starves to death, just keep on dropping the babes.
>>
>> I had a friend that got a woman pregnant and wanted the baby, but she had
>> an abortion anyway. Any thoughts on the morality of that?
>
> I see no moral issues good or bad.
>
> Now, back to my question.
>
> How many women have you personally supported to the tune of $300,000 for
> the costs of bringing up a baby that you want her to drop?

I have personally raised every baby that I have created. How do you like
them apples?

Now why do you think that a woman has more of a right to the baby than a
man? I would suggest if they want the freedom to do with the baby what they
want, there should never be a mandatory child support payment ever again.

tar~bal wrote:
> "martin" > wrote in message
> ...
>> tar~bal wrote:
>>> "martin" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> JZ wrote:
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> Michelle Steiner > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>> JZ > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Baloney! A woman who has had an abortion is in no worse a mental
>>>>>>>> state than any other woman.
>>>>>>> I would heartily disagree. Any woman that doesn't feel guilt and
>>>>>>> regret is just burying her true feelings or has a heart of stone.
>>>>>> You can disagree all you want, but that doesn't change facts. Your
>>>>>> condescending attitude towards women is disgusting.
>>>>> How about your condescending attitude toward babies (as in not caring
>>>>> if they live or die)? When you don't care about life itself, you can't
>>>>> get more condescending than that. Its not about women. Its about
>>>>> anybody that is stopping a fetus from being born. It can be a man
>>>>> pressuring a woman to get an abortion because he doesn't want the
>>>>> hassle of a baby in his life.
>>>> How many women have you given $300,000 to in order to pay for and raise
>>>> her baby? You lot are all the same, you don't care once it's born and
>>>> starves to death, just keep on dropping the babes.
>>> I had a friend that got a woman pregnant and wanted the baby, but she had
>>> an abortion anyway. Any thoughts on the morality of that?
>> I see no moral issues good or bad.
>>
>> Now, back to my question.
>>
>> How many women have you personally supported to the tune of $300,000 for
>> the costs of bringing up a baby that you want her to drop?
>
> I have personally raised every baby that I have created. How do you like
> them apples?

I'll take it as you're avoiding answering the question that you have
never given enough money to women to raise a kid that she wanted to have
aborted. When you do, then you can try to end it. Just like the rest of
your kind, it's all about control while refusing to provide any kind of
practical support.

> Now why do you think that a woman has more of a right to the baby than a
> man? I would suggest if they want the freedom to do with the baby what they
> want, there should never be a mandatory child support payment ever again.

I would suggest that when a man gets pregnant then he can decide what to
do with it.
>
>

"martin" > wrote in message
...
> tar~bal wrote:
>> "martin" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> tar~bal wrote:
>>>> "martin" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> JZ wrote:
>>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>> Michelle Steiner > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>>> JZ > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Baloney! A woman who has had an abortion is in no worse a mental
>>>>>>>>> state than any other woman.
>>>>>>>> I would heartily disagree. Any woman that doesn't feel guilt and
>>>>>>>> regret is just burying her true feelings or has a heart of stone.
>>>>>>> You can disagree all you want, but that doesn't change facts. Your
>>>>>>> condescending attitude towards women is disgusting.
>>>>>> How about your condescending attitude toward babies (as in not caring
>>>>>> if they live or die)? When you don't care about life itself, you
>>>>>> can't get more condescending than that. Its not about women. Its
>>>>>> about anybody that is stopping a fetus from being born. It can be a
>>>>>> man pressuring a woman to get an abortion because he doesn't want the
>>>>>> hassle of a baby in his life.
>>>>> How many women have you given $300,000 to in order to pay for and
>>>>> raise her baby? You lot are all the same, you don't care once it's
>>>>> born and starves to death, just keep on dropping the babes.
>>>> I had a friend that got a woman pregnant and wanted the baby, but she
>>>> had an abortion anyway. Any thoughts on the morality of that?
>>> I see no moral issues good or bad.
>>>
>>> Now, back to my question.
>>>
>>> How many women have you personally supported to the tune of $300,000 for
>>> the costs of bringing up a baby that you want her to drop?
>>
>> I have personally raised every baby that I have created. How do you like
>> them apples?
>
> I'll take it as you're avoiding answering the question that you have never
> given enough money to women to raise a kid that she wanted to have
> aborted. When you do, then you can try to end it. Just like the rest of
> your kind, it's all about control while refusing to provide any kind of
> practical support.

What do you say that we keep abortion legal, but the condition being that we
have to kill the women that have them as well? Ok, that's a little harsh.
How about we temporarily sterilize everyone until they have the means and
education to raise a child? That way the whole abortion issue is largely
moot.

>
>> Now why do you think that a woman has more of a right to the baby than a
>> man? I would suggest if they want the freedom to do with the baby what
>> they
>> want, there should never be a mandatory child support payment ever again.
>
> I would suggest that when a man gets pregnant then he can decide what to
> do with it.

When a woman can get pregant without a man's sperm, she can have total say.

In article ET>,
TaliesinSoft > wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 08:56:03 -0600, KK wrote (in article
> >):
>
> [responding to my stating that there is increasing evidence to support that
> life begins at conception]
> >
> > How has is been "confirmed"?
>
> Take a look at
> <http://channel.nationalgeographic.co...omb-2228?#tab-
> Videos/01586_05> which shows, via the recent 4D xray technique, movies of
> still in the womb babies doing such as playing with their nose and yawning.
> If this isn't evidence of life then what is it?

It's you seeing what you want to see.

--
D.F. Manno |

This time _we_ won. This time _you_ get over it.

> >>>> Baloney! A woman who has had an abortion is in no worse a mental
> >>>> state than any other woman.

> >>> I would heartily disagree. Any woman that doesn't feel guilt and
> >>> regret is just burying her true feelings or has a heart of stone.
> >> You can disagree all you want, but that doesn't change facts. Your
> >> condescending attitude towards women is disgusting.
> >
> > How about your condescending attitude toward babies (as in not caring if
> > they live or die)? When you don't care about life itself, you can't get
> > more condescending than that. Its not about women. Its about anybody
> > that is stopping a fetus from being born. It can be a man pressuring a
> > woman to get an abortion because he doesn't want the hassle of a baby in
> > his life.
>
> How many women have you given $300,000 to in order to pay for and raise
> her baby? You lot are all the same, you don't care once it's born and
> starves to death, just keep on dropping the babes.

Not applicable as there are far more infertile couples yearning for
children that would happily take on the responsibility. "Starve to
death"...where are we, in some Indian shantytown? Wake up, this is
North America. The only people that have eating problems also have
substance abuse problems - or mental problems.

In article >,
martin > wrote:

> TaliesinSoft wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 08:56:03 -0600, KK wrote (in article
> > >):
> >
> > [responding to my stating that there is increasing evidence to support that
> > life begins at conception]
> >> How has is been "confirmed"?
> >
> > Take a look at
> > <http://channel.nationalgeographic.co...omb-2228?#tab-
> > Videos/01586_05> which shows, via the recent 4D xray technique, movies of
> > still in the womb babies doing such as playing with their nose and yawning.
> > If this isn't evidence of life then what is it?
>
> Who said anything about it not being life? Idiot!

Every abortionist! How else could have rationalize the execution of
that fetus?

In article >,
"tar~bal" > wrote:

> "TaliesinSoft" > wrote in message
> al.NET...
> > On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 08:56:03 -0600, KK wrote (in article
> > >):
> >
> > [responding to my stating that there is increasing evidence to
> > support that life begins at conception]
> >>
> >> How has is been "confirmed"?
> >
> > Take a look at
> > <http://channel.nationalgeographic.co...womb-2228?#tab
> > - Videos/01586_05> which shows, via the recent 4D xray technique,
> > movies of still in the womb babies doing such as playing with their
> > nose and yawning. If this isn't evidence of life then what is it?

Whether life "begins at conception" depends on how you define "life."
Personally, I have no argument with the claim that the blastosome meets
the criteria for life (contains DNA, capable of reproduction by cell
division, etc.). The development of emergent properties like
consciousness, sentience etc. is a different question and not easily
resolved. The question of "ensoulment" as GWB put it is an article of
faith and not subject to proof or disproof- not only ensoulment but the
very existence of a soul.

> It's just a clump of cells like a scab or a toenail. Everyone knows
> that the fetus is just a tumor that women can rip out of their body
> at their own discretion. It's akin to cutting one's hair...

About 25% of known pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion. Nearly 100%
of unknown pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion without the mother
ever knowing she was pregnant. The estimates for the total prevalence
of spontaneous abortions range from 30-50% of all pregnancies. The vast
majority of spontaneous abortions occur before the 10th week and most
are caused by genetic anomalies in the fetus. If God was as worried
about it as many humans are, don't you think the system He designed
would be more failsafe?

And, to tar~bal: I have spoken to many women who had an abortion,
several doctors who have performed abortions and many pro-choice
supporters- NONE of whom considered an abortion "akin to cutting one's
hair." How ****ing dare you accuse anyone of that, you mean-spirited
little piece of shite. Get some treatment for your craniorectal
inversion.

No one- including pro-choice supporters and the doctors who perform
abortions- thinks that abortions are a desirable thing. Abortions are
sometimes necessary and every woman who makes this choice has considered
the alternatives and has done so carefully. It is despicable for you to
make the aspersion that this is done cavalierly, you small-minded little
prick.

Only in the twisted, fevered imaginations of the whacko right wing do
people have or perform abortions with a song in their hearts and a smile
on their lips. The whackos find it necessary to demonize women who have
abortions and the doctors to perform them, to justify harassing them,
trying to kill them, etc. There are, however, many people of good will
and compassion who oppose abortions and there are many people of good
will and compassion who support access to abortions. These folks would
find a surprising-to-some amount of common ground, as has occurred in
South Dakota as a matter of fact. These are the folks who will bring
healing and rationality to the discussion. I hope tar~bal might be
among them someday.

JZ wrote:
> In article >,
> martin > wrote:
>
>> TaliesinSoft wrote:
>>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 08:56:03 -0600, KK wrote (in article
>>> >):
>>>
>>> [responding to my stating that there is increasing evidence to support that
>>> life begins at conception]
>>>> How has is been "confirmed"?
>>> Take a look at
>>> <http://channel.nationalgeographic.co...omb-2228?#tab-
>>> Videos/01586_05> which shows, via the recent 4D xray technique, movies of
>>> still in the womb babies doing such as playing with their nose and yawning.
>>> If this isn't evidence of life then what is it?
>> Who said anything about it not being life? Idiot!
>
> Every abortionist! How else could have rationalize the execution of
> that fetus?

You're ****ing barking! Cite!

"Michelle Steiner" > wrote in message
...
> In article > ,
> "tar~bal" > wrote:
>
>> Michelle is a miserable person.
>
> Not nearly as miserable as you are.
>
>> Pretty funny, she seems the most rabid about causes that are never
>> going to affect her like abortion and *** marriage.
>
> You are projecting. Abortion and *** marriage are never going to affect
> you, but you are viciously rabid about them. And *** marriage can
> definitely affect me personally. And the abortion issue also affects me
> because it is one issue that is used to subjugate women.
>
> So to put it bluntly, go **** yourself, dipshit.

So tell me, do you believe in equal rights for men with regards to whether
their baby is killed or are you a hypocrite?

"Michelle Steiner" > wrote in message
...
> In article > ,
> "tar~bal" > wrote:
>
>> When a woman can get pregant without a man's sperm, she can have
>> total say.
>
> It's her body, so she has total say.
>

So you don't believe in equal rights. What I have come to expect from ***
people.

"Michelle Steiner" > wrote in message
...
> In article > ,
> "tar~bal" > wrote:
>
>> I had a friend that got a woman pregnant and wanted the baby, but she
>> had an abortion anyway. Any thoughts on the morality of that?
>
> Yeah, it's her body, not his. He doesn't get to decide.

It's his baby, too.

"Michelle Steiner" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> JZ > wrote:
>
>> Its not about women.
>
> It is *all* about women. It is *only* about women.

How equal righty of you.

"Michelle Steiner" > wrote in message
...
> In article > ,
> "tar~bal" > wrote:
>
>> I was against abortion before, but now I think that every woman
>> should be entitled to ONE abortion. And in that process, they should
>> rip out her reproductive organs as well.
>
> Starting with your mother, retroactively.

You'd love my mother. Because you're ***.

tar~bal wrote:
> "Michelle Steiner" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article > ,
>> "tar~bal" > wrote:
>>
>>> Michelle is a miserable person.
>> Not nearly as miserable as you are.
>>
>>> Pretty funny, she seems the most rabid about causes that are never
>>> going to affect her like abortion and *** marriage.
>> You are projecting. Abortion and *** marriage are never going to affect
>> you, but you are viciously rabid about them. And *** marriage can
>> definitely affect me personally. And the abortion issue also affects me
>> because it is one issue that is used to subjugate women.
>>
>> So to put it bluntly, go **** yourself, dipshit.
>
> So tell me, do you believe in equal rights for men with regards to whether
> their baby is killed or are you a hypocrite?

No babies are being killed. Liar.
>
>

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 07:29:03 -0500, tar~bal wrote:

> "Michelle Steiner" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article > , "tar~bal"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> When a woman can get pregant without a man's sperm, she can have total
>>> say.
>>
>> It's her body, so she has total say.
>>
>>
> So you don't believe in equal rights. What I have come to expect from
> *** people.

I believe in equal rights. If there was a protoperson growing in a man's
body, I'd believe in his right to have it removed.

"martin" > wrote in message
...
> tar~bal wrote:
>> "Michelle Steiner" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article > ,
>>> "tar~bal" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Michelle is a miserable person.
>>> Not nearly as miserable as you are.
>>>
>>>> Pretty funny, she seems the most rabid about causes that are never
>>>> going to affect her like abortion and *** marriage.
>>> You are projecting. Abortion and *** marriage are never going to affect
>>> you, but you are viciously rabid about them. And *** marriage can
>>> definitely affect me personally. And the abortion issue also affects me
>>> because it is one issue that is used to subjugate women.
>>>
>>> So to put it bluntly, go **** yourself, dipshit.
>>
>> So tell me, do you believe in equal rights for men with regards to
>> whether their baby is killed or are you a hypocrite?
>
> No babies are being killed. Liar.

No babies are being born.

"KK" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 07:29:03 -0500, tar~bal wrote:
>
>> "Michelle Steiner" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article > , "tar~bal"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> When a woman can get pregant without a man's sperm, she can have total
>>>> say.
>>>
>>> It's her body, so she has total say.
>>>
>>>
>> So you don't believe in equal rights. What I have come to expect from
>> *** people.
>
> I believe in equal rights. If there was a protoperson growing in a man's
> body, I'd believe in his right to have it removed.

We have already established that you like abortion.

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 09:31:03 -0500, tar~bal wrote:

> "KK" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 07:29:03 -0500, tar~bal wrote:
>>
>>> "Michelle Steiner" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> In article > ,
>>>> "tar~bal" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> When a woman can get pregant without a man's sperm, she can have
>>>>> total say.
>>>>
>>>> It's her body, so she has total say.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> So you don't believe in equal rights. What I have come to expect from
>>> *** people.
>>
>> I believe in equal rights. If there was a protoperson growing in a
>> man's body, I'd believe in his right to have it removed.
>
> We have already established that you like abortion.

Why do you have to do that? Your assigning a feeling I don't have (and
which you couldn't know I had if I did) doesn't change the facts or what
makes up either of our opinions.

The fact (and this issue is short on them and long on emotion on both
sides) is that, if the right to abortion comes from ownership of one's
body, then there's no contradiction when a man's not allowed to decide
what the woman's to do, or to not do.

"KK" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 09:31:03 -0500, tar~bal wrote:
>
>> "KK" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 07:29:03 -0500, tar~bal wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Michelle Steiner" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> In article > ,
>>>>> "tar~bal" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> When a woman can get pregant without a man's sperm, she can have
>>>>>> total say.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's her body, so she has total say.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> So you don't believe in equal rights. What I have come to expect from
>>>> *** people.
>>>
>>> I believe in equal rights. If there was a protoperson growing in a
>>> man's body, I'd believe in his right to have it removed.
>>
>> We have already established that you like abortion.
>
> Why do you have to do that? Your assigning a feeling I don't have (and
> which you couldn't know I had if I did) doesn't change the facts or what
> makes up either of our opinions.

Why are you asking when you've seen me do it a million times before. It
gets boring writing sentences the same way over and over. What's wrong with
stirring it up a little?


>
> The fact (and this issue is short on them and long on emotion on both
> sides) is that, if the right to abortion comes from ownership of one's
> body, then there's no contradiction when a man's not allowed to decide
> what the woman's to do, or to not do.
>

I understand how the fetus has been misinterpreted by the abortion people.
My point is that it is wrong and the baby is equally the man's. This is
proven legally by the way men are required to provide child support if the
woman choses to have the baby.

Therefore, the man should have some say, if not equal say, as to the
disposition of the unborn baby.

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:37:57 -0500, tar~bal wrote:

> "KK" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 09:31:03 -0500, tar~bal wrote:
>>
>>> "KK" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 07:29:03 -0500, tar~bal wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Michelle Steiner" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> In article > ,
>>>>>> "tar~bal" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When a woman can get pregant without a man's sperm, she can have
>>>>>>> total say.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's her body, so she has total say.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> So you don't believe in equal rights. What I have come to expect
>>>>> from *** people.
>>>>
>>>> I believe in equal rights. If there was a protoperson growing in a
>>>> man's body, I'd believe in his right to have it removed.
>>>
>>> We have already established that you like abortion.
>>
>> Why do you have to do that? Your assigning a feeling I don't have (and
>> which you couldn't know I had if I did) doesn't change the facts or
>> what makes up either of our opinions.
>
> Why are you asking when you've seen me do it a million times before. It
> gets boring writing sentences the same way over and over. What's wrong
> with stirring it up a little?


Because you added zero content with that sentence - I'm all for seasoning
an argument for interest or entertainment purposes, but a sentence like
that is like eating salt or pepper by itself and not on anything.




>
>
>
>> The fact (and this issue is short on them and long on emotion on both
>> sides) is that, if the right to abortion comes from ownership of one's
>> body, then there's no contradiction when a man's not allowed to decide
>> what the woman's to do, or to not do.
>>
>>
> I understand how the fetus has been misinterpreted by the abortion
> people.

I don't think you do. If there were a thing with the same status and
rights as a person, if it were in my body my rights would supercede its.


> My point is that it is wrong and the baby is equally the man's.

Once it's born, yes, it is.

> This is proven legally by the way men are required to provide child
> support if the woman choses to have the baby.

Right. Since that support isn't paid - and in fact can't be requested -
until after birth, we've then "proven legally" that it's not a person
until birth. I'm glad we agree on something!




> Therefore, the man should have some say, if not equal say, as to the
> disposition of the unborn baby.

How'd you sneak "unborn" into there? We just proved legally that men
have no standing and the fetus isn't a person until birth.

"KK" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:37:57 -0500, tar~bal wrote:
>
>> "KK" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 09:31:03 -0500, tar~bal wrote:
>>>
>>>> "KK" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 07:29:03 -0500, tar~bal wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Michelle Steiner" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> In article > ,
>>>>>>> "tar~bal" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When a woman can get pregant without a man's sperm, she can have
>>>>>>>> total say.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's her body, so she has total say.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you don't believe in equal rights. What I have come to expect
>>>>>> from *** people.
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe in equal rights. If there was a protoperson growing in a
>>>>> man's body, I'd believe in his right to have it removed.
>>>>
>>>> We have already established that you like abortion.
>>>
>>> Why do you have to do that? Your assigning a feeling I don't have (and
>>> which you couldn't know I had if I did) doesn't change the facts or
>>> what makes up either of our opinions.
>>
>> Why are you asking when you've seen me do it a million times before. It
>> gets boring writing sentences the same way over and over. What's wrong
>> with stirring it up a little?
>
>
> Because you added zero content with that sentence - I'm all for seasoning
> an argument for interest or entertainment purposes, but a sentence like
> that is like eating salt or pepper by itself and not on anything.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> The fact (and this issue is short on them and long on emotion on both
>>> sides) is that, if the right to abortion comes from ownership of one's
>>> body, then there's no contradiction when a man's not allowed to decide
>>> what the woman's to do, or to not do.
>>>
>>>
>> I understand how the fetus has been misinterpreted by the abortion
>> people.
>
> I don't think you do. If there were a thing with the same status and
> rights as a person, if it were in my body my rights would supercede its.
>
>
>> My point is that it is wrong and the baby is equally the man's.
>
> Once it's born, yes, it is.
>
>> This is proven legally by the way men are required to provide child
>> support if the woman choses to have the baby.
>
> Right. Since that support isn't paid - and in fact can't be requested -
> until after birth, we've then "proven legally" that it's not a person
> until birth. I'm glad we agree on something!
>
>
>
>
>> Therefore, the man should have some say, if not equal say, as to the
>> disposition of the unborn baby.
>
> How'd you sneak "unborn" into there? We just proved legally that men
> have no standing and the fetus isn't a person until birth.


Unless, of course, the woman he murders is pregnant. Then what, hotshot?