# pro-life people, is abortion okay here?



## blu (Jun 30, 2010)

Two brothers charged with molesting 10-year-old girl | ajc.com

A 10 year old was raped by two family members (incest) and impregnated, she got an abortion. Was she wrong? Should a ten year old have to carry a baby to term?


----------



## LuckyDan (Jun 30, 2010)

The abortion solved...what?


----------



## fyrenza (Jun 30, 2010)

Dear God, forgive me, but

imho, yes.

Abortion is the ONLY option.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 30, 2010)

blu said:


> Two brothers charged with molesting 10-year-old girl | ajc.com
> 
> A 10 year old was raped by two family members (incest) and impregnated, she got an abortion. Was she wrong? Should a ten year old have to carry a baby to term?



A death for a death they both should die.


----------



## editec (Jun 30, 2010)

blu said:


> Two brothers charged with molesting 10-year-old girl | ajc.com
> 
> A 10 year old was raped by two family members (incest) and impregnated, she got an abortion. Was she wrong? Should a ten year old have to carry a baby to term?


 
Don't you know that GOD has a history of approving of incest?


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jun 30, 2010)

Oh my god, that is incredibly fucked up.


----------



## chanel (Jun 30, 2010)

Most people would agree that rape, incest, and/or the life of the mother are compelling arguments for an abortion.  This poor child suffered all three.

And while this story is disturbing and shocking, I am certain it happens a whole lot more than we know.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 30, 2010)

editec said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > Two brothers charged with molesting 10-year-old girl | ajc.com
> ...



You are a fucking retard.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jun 30, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > blu said:
> ...



What, never heard of Abraham?


----------



## topspin (Jun 30, 2010)

exactly what does the bible say republiklansman?


----------



## Mad Scientist (Jun 30, 2010)

topspin said:


> exactly what does the bible say republiklansman?


Is the only think you can contribute? "RepubliKlansman"? You used that on another thread too.

Negged.


----------



## strollingbones (Jun 30, 2010)

death for 10 yr olds?  is that really how disposable we find children?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 30, 2010)

hellbitch said:


> death for 10 yr olds?  is that really how disposable we find children?



It starts with abortion, Bones.


----------



## ConHog (Jun 30, 2010)

This case calls for 3 abortions. Two of them VERY late term.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 30, 2010)

We just had this exact same discussion not very long ago. Children who can suffer medical issues and death from carrying a baby to term are among the TINY percentage of people for whom abortion is appropriate.

And the whole idea that women (or children) who will potentially die as a result of carrying a baby should carry those babies anyway is strictly from the pro-abortionists. Those of us who oppose abortion have never, not historically, not now, supported forcing those whose lives are put in jeopardy (more than usual, that is) to bear children to term.


----------



## ConHog (Jun 30, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> We just had this exact same discussion not very long ago. Children who can suffer medical issues and death from carrying a baby to term are among the TINY percentage of people for whom abortion is appropriate.
> 
> And the whole idea that women (or children) who will potentially die as a result of carrying a baby should carry those babies anyway is strictly from the pro-abortionists. Those of us who oppose abortion have never, not historically, not now, supported forcing those whose lives are put in jeopardy (more than usual, that is) to bear children to term.



This is just another dishonest trick from the loons. No different than trying to claim that the vast majority of abortions performed in this country aren't simply birth control, when obviously they are.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jun 30, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> We just had this exact same discussion not very long ago. Children who can suffer medical issues and death from carrying a baby to term are among the TINY percentage of people for whom abortion is appropriate.
> 
> And the whole idea that women (or children) who will potentially die as a result of carrying a baby should carry those babies anyway is strictly from the pro-abortionists. Those of us who oppose abortion have never, not historically, not now, supported forcing those whose lives are put in jeopardy (more than usual, that is) to bear children to term.


----------



## blu (Jun 30, 2010)

hellbitch said:


> death for 10 yr olds?  is that really how disposable we find children?



who said to kill the 10 year old?


----------



## Nonelitist (Jun 30, 2010)

Only opinion here that matters is that of the Creator of life... God.

Abortion is murder... no exceptions.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jun 30, 2010)

blu said:


> Two brothers charged with molesting 10-year-old girl | ajc.com
> 
> A 10 year old was raped by two family members (incest) and impregnated, she got an abortion. Was she wrong? Should a ten year old have to carry a baby to term?



No she should not. IMO this is one of the times when Abortion is justified and should be legal. 

I have a problem with the Use of Abortion when you are talking about women who simply didn't want to get pregnant, not in a case like this.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jun 30, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> Only opinion here that matters is that of the Creator of life... God.
> 
> Abortion is murder... no exceptions.



So who do you propose takes care of this baby when its born? The 10 year old? Maybe she should just get a job and stop freeloading off of your tax dollars, right?


----------



## Nonelitist (Jun 30, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> > Only opinion here that matters is that of the Creator of life... God.
> ...




A human taking the life of another is murder.  God doesn't recommend murder as a means of "fixing" the problem mentioned.  If I can't find a way to accomodate this situation, God doesn't approve of taking a human life.  

Horrible, disgusting, sickening and heartbreaking situation.

Just another example of what happens when man lives apart from God's rule.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jun 30, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Nonelitist said:
> ...



So you didn't answer my question at all. I'll repeat it since I guess you missed it the first time I asked it.

*So who do you propose takes care of this baby when its born? The 10 year old? Maybe she should just get a job and stop freeloading off of your tax dollars, right?*


----------



## Nonelitist (Jun 30, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...




Any solution that can be had, adoption, keeping baby, mothers parents... whichever works.  God's law supercedes the solution.

If this were to happen to my child... she woudl have the baby and I would take care of it.  It would suck but I would be upholding God's principles of valuing life.
If you chose to do differently, I would not comment for or against you.  That is your moral choice... but it would still be murder.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jun 30, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Nonelitist said:
> ...



So you have no realistic solution. Got it. 

And citing "gods law" is a bit out of line, since God is one of the leading causes of death in the history of man.


----------



## Nonelitist (Jun 30, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...




Gave you a few solutions.  It is possible my edit was after you replied.

And you are right... the "god" of most religions on earth is responsible for probably most of the suffering on earth and many many millions of deaths. 

That isn't the true God of the Bible.  The bible forbids the killing of man for any reason, including war.  So, the religions that approve of War, and sometimes actually promote it, are not serving God.

The results of these religions promoting hatred has cause exactly what you express...  disillusionment and hate of most religion.  It is understandable.


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

ConHog said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > We just had this exact same discussion not very long ago. Children who can suffer medical issues and death from carrying a baby to term are among the TINY percentage of people for whom abortion is appropriate.
> ...



So pro-life people are willing to "murder" an unborn child. I guess they're not so pro-life after all

And every abortion is birth control. Only a moron, like you,  would think it's not birth control.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jun 30, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Not that I would ever advocate she have the child, as a 10 year old is very likely to suffer complications, but I find it funny you can not even seem to conceive of the concept of Adoption and keep asking that same question as if the only option in any situation is either kill the baby or you have to raise it. If there is no threat to the woman's life to have the child, I would hope people would at least consider Adoption before simply killing it.


----------



## topspin (Jun 30, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> Only opinion here that matters is that of the Creator of life... God.
> 
> Abortion is murder... no exceptions.



 God is as real as spider man, so it doesn't matter


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jun 30, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Nonelitist said:
> ...



Right because there aren't enough kids in the world today who have no parents or family. Lets add more. That's a solid solution.


----------



## Gem (Jun 30, 2010)

I, and many other people who are against abortion, are willing to state that I think in cases like these, abortion should _absolutely_ be an option.  Not only do I not believe a woman should ever be forced to carry a child conceived by rape (although whether or not aborting a child conceived by rape is always the best choice for the victim should be a discussion in another thread), but the potential physical dangers to a child so young carrying a baby to term are severe.  

So - if many anti-abortion people are willing to agree that abortion in this instance should be an option... why is it so hard for the pro-abortion crowd to admit that when this little girl HAS the abortion...she (or more appropriately, the people making the decision for her) are ending a life.  A life in its very early stages of development, to be sure, but a life nonetheless?


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Gem said:


> I, and many other people who are against abortion, are willing to state that I think in cases like these, abortion should _absolutely_ be an option.  Not only do I not believe a woman should ever be forced to carry a child conceived by rape (although whether or not aborting a child conceived by rape is always the best choice for the victim should be a discussion in another thread), but the potential physical dangers to a child so young carrying a baby to term are severe.
> 
> So - if many anti-abortion people are willing to agree that abortion in this instance should be an option... why is it so hard for the pro-abortion crowd to admit that when this little girl HAS the abortion...she (or more appropriately, the people making the decision for her) are ending a life.  A life in its very early stages of development, to be sure, but a life nonetheless?



Another conservative who is OK with killing an unborn even though they believe God says it's wrong to do so


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 30, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > blu said:
> ...



Not if you buy the creation myth of Adam and Eve and all humanity being their descendants.

Not that I do.


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



The christians have a pretty bad record of pedophilia also


----------



## Nonelitist (Jun 30, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...




You criticize this solution when yours is to kill an innocent child?


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



Only morons think a "fetus" is a "child"

This is america. Learn to speak English!


----------



## bodecea (Jun 30, 2010)

The Pro-Life side is not so solid...so black and white...is it?


----------



## Nonelitist (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...




Many times it is a child becuase it is capable of living outside its mother.  

What we won't agree on is when that is a child... but that disagreement doesn't mean that I am wrong.

I have a very firm grasp of the english language. .. not sure what your point was.


----------



## Nonelitist (Jun 30, 2010)

bodecea said:


> The Pro-Life side is not so solid...so black and white...is it?




No... it isn't.  


That kinda blows your theory that Conservatives aren't very tolerant doesn't it?

You libs are very rock solid on your abortion beliefs huh?  Doesn't that make you an intolerant party?  All think alike?

idiot.


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Nonelitist said:
> ...



Child - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> A child (plural: children) is *a human between the stages of birth and puberty*. The legal definition of "child" generally refers to a minor, otherwise known as a person younger than the age of majority. "Child" may also describe a relationship with a parent or authority figure, or signify group membership in a clan, tribe, or religion; it can also signify being strongly affected by a specific time, place, or circumstance, as in "a child of nature" or "a child of the Sixties."[1]



Learn to speak English. This is america!!


----------



## Nonelitist (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...




That isn't my definition.  Nice try though.

Note.... america should be with an uppercase A..... idiot.

Learn to spell the language.


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Nonelitist said:
> ...



And another wingnut is reduced to tossing childish insults because they have no argument to make.

This wingnut thinks words mean what he says they mean


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 30, 2010)

I oppose abortion for anyone in my family and anyone anywhere.
However, as a conservative I am against the power of government interfering in the affairs of others when it is a family decision like abortion.
Wealthy people will have abortions and never be prosecuted no matter what the law. Wake up Americans. Abortion laws are giving power to government and taking rights from the people.
I oppose it but I am a man. We are a nation of laws, NOT men and the Constitution LIMITS the power of government.
Don't you folks know what a conservative is anymore?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 30, 2010)

editec said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > Two brothers charged with molesting 10-year-old girl | ajc.com
> ...



That probably depends on your definition of incest.


----------



## Nonelitist (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Your defnition is different than mine... so what?


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Nonelitist said:
> ...



No, *THE* definition is different than yours


----------



## Nonelitist (Jun 30, 2010)

http://www.yourdictionary.com/child




child (c&#824;h&#299;ld)

noun pl. children chil&#8242;·dren

an infant; baby
an unborn offspring; fetus
a boy or girl in the period before puberty
a son or daughter; offspring

a descendant
a member of a tribe, clan, etc.: often used in pl.: children of Israel
a person like a child in interests, judgment, etc., or one regarded as immature and childish
a person identified with a specified place, time, etc.: a child of the Renaissance
a thing that springs from a specified source; product: a child of one's imagination
Archaic childe
Brit., Dialectal a female infant


Now what stupid ass little boy?


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> child - Definition of child at YourDictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No link?


----------



## topspin (Jun 30, 2010)

no joke your not an elitist!!!


----------



## Nonelitist (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> > child - Definition of child at YourDictionary.com
> ...




Open your eyes you jackass.... my god how can you be this stupid?


----------



## ConHog (Jun 30, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Nonelitist said:
> ...



You think THAT is Sangha being stupid? You aint seen NOTHING yet.


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

ConHog said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



conjob thinks I'm dumb enough to pay to piss on a prostitute

Oh wait!! That was him

NE, you don't seem to know how to read a dictionary. There's a reason why it's the 2nd definition


----------



## Nonelitist (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...





Glittering jewel of ignorance


----------



## Nonelitist (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > Nonelitist said:
> ...




What?


----------



## Middleman (Jun 30, 2010)

I'm prolife, with dispensations for rape and incest.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



There are two sides to the abortion debate, you are either pro abortion or anti abortion. The other labels that keep popping up, ie pro life and pro choice are just political slogans to pander to emotions. People can easily have a position on the abortion issue that opposes abortion in most cases, but recognizes that there is a medical need for it in some cases. You do not get to label your opponents as hypocrites my applying labels to them and then claiming they are not following your labels. My biggest problem is that pro abortion side routinely lies about their position, and then claims the other side is hypocritical because they do not fit the false labels opposed upon them.

I would also like to point out that you often praise the ability of your side to have their own opinions, to bad you do not allow your opponents the same options. Are you actually afraid to debate with people who can demonstrate an ability to think for themselves?


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > ConHog said:
> ...



Like I said, you don't understand how to read a dictionary


----------



## Yukon. (Jun 30, 2010)

blu said:


> Two brothers charged with molesting 10-year-old girl | ajc.com
> 
> A 10 year old was raped by two family members (incest) and impregnated, she got an abortion. Was she wrong? Should a ten year old have to carry a baby to term?



According to the Pro-Life fanatics this child should have carried the "baby" to term, she aborted the "baby" therefor she committed murder. I'm only repeating what the pro-life wack jobs believe. No pro-lifer can condone what this "10 year-old" woman did, she's a muderess plain and simple. 

The above comments are of course made in jest however the crazies, people like the ConHog, believe it.


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > ConHog said:
> ...



I don't see how "abortion is OK in certain cases" can be justified.



> You do not get to label your opponents as hypocrites my applying labels to them and then claiming they are not following your labels. My biggest problem is that pro abortion side routinely lies about their position, and then claims the other side is hypocritical because they do not fit the false labels opposed upon them.



The anti-choice crowd lies all the time when they call abortion "murder", but says its OK to murder sometimes, even though they believe God is against murder




> I would also like to point out that you often praise the ability of your side to have their own opinions, to bad you do not allow your opponents the same options. Are you actually afraid to debate with people who can demonstrate an ability to think for themselves?



The opinions of reasonable people can be supported by facts. The anti-choice crowd has nothing but faith, and they ignore the facts. And it's the anti-choice Talibornagains who are trying to limit other peoples' options.

The idea that anyone is limiting the anti-choicers ability or right to express their opinion is just the whiny delusions of those who can't bear to be criticized by people with differing opinions.

It's the anti-choice crowd that passes laws that limit a doctors ability to express their opinions to their patients. It's the anti-choice crowd that want to limit the discussion about sex ed to abstinence. It's the anti-choice talibornagains who want to limit choice BY LAW; not the pro-choice crowd


----------



## Yukon. (Jun 30, 2010)

ConHog said:


> *You think THAT is Sangha being stupid? You aint seen NOTHING yet.*



ConHog,

Now that you're adding your lunatic comments I have to agree with you.


----------



## ConHog (Jun 30, 2010)

Yukon. said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > Two brothers charged with molesting 10-year-old girl | ajc.com
> ...



Want to bet on this board right now that I have never said that

A) abortion is murder
B) abortion shouldn't be allowed in the case of incest and or rape, as well as when the mother's life could be jeopardized by the pregnancy? Which this particular case would be all three.

I'm willing to make it a loser leaves town bet....... I'll give you 45 minutes to find a quote from me anywhere refuting what I just wrote.


----------



## Nonelitist (Jun 30, 2010)

Fetal alcohol syndrome definition - Medical Dictionary definitions of popular medical terms easily defined on MedTerms

Fetal alcohol syndrome: The sum total of the damage done to the child before birth as a result of the mother drinking alcohol during pregnancy. Fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) always involves brain damage, impaired growth, and head and face abnormalities. 

Children | Define Children at Dictionary.com

child&#8194; &#8194;/t&#643;a&#618;ld/  Show Spelled[chahyld]  Show IPA 
noun, plural chil·dren.  
1. a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl: books for children. 
2. a son or daughter: All my children are married. 
3. a baby or infant. 
4. a human fetus. 
5. a childish person: He's such a child about money. 
6. a descendant: a child of an ancient breed. 
7. any person or thing regarded as the product or result of particular agencies, influences, etc.: Abstract art is a child of the 20th century. 
8. a person regarded as conditioned or marked by a given circumstance, situation, etc.: a child of poverty; a child of famine. 
9. British  Dialect  Archaic . a female infant. 
10. Archaic . childe. 

Fetal Homicide State Laws

Alabama*
 Ala. Code § 13A-6-1 (2006) defines person for the purpose of criminal homicide or assaults.  The law defines person to include an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability and specifies that nothing in this act shall make it a crime to perform or obtain an abortion that is otherwise legal.


----------



## Nonelitist (Jun 30, 2010)

Sangha... I agree... if abortion is murder... it is murder in every case.

I have stated that.... so I am not a hypocrite in this matter.  You may not like or agree with my view, but I am not a hypocrite.


----------



## Yukon. (Jun 30, 2010)

ConHog,

Obviously my comment was beyond your comprehension. I simply used you as the example of a crazie who believes abortion is wrong in all instances. Read it real slow ConHog maybe you'll understand it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 30, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Pretty typical response from a pro abortion person. Maybe if adoption laws were a little less expensive to negotiate there would be a lot less kids without parents.


----------



## Yukon. (Jun 30, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> Sangha... I agree... if abortion is murder... it is murder in every case.
> 
> I have stated that.... so I am not a hypocrite in this matter.  You may not like or agree with my view, but I am not a hypocrite.



Sangha,

If your wife or daughter were gang=raped and became pregnant would you permit her to have an abortion or would you tell her to carry it to term?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 30, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > ConHog said:
> ...



No. It all boils down to being pro Constitution or anti Constitution. Either you are a strict conservative and believe in limiting the power of government or you want a liberal interpretation to allow government more power.
A liberal interpretation of the Constitution gives the power to government to stop SOME women, and allow the wealthy ones, from having an abortion.
A strict conservative never wants to give power to government, which always abuses it, and take away the rights of the people.


----------



## ConHog (Jun 30, 2010)

Yukon. said:


> ConHog,
> 
> Obviously my comment was beyond your comprehension. I simply used you as the example of a crazie who believes abortion is wrong in all instances. Read it real slow ConHog maybe you'll understand it.



Well, I already knew you were stupid, but why would you use someone who doesn't beleive what you are saying as an example of anything? I mean what you just did is about like me using Obama as an example of someone who believes in fiscal responsibility. It doesn't make sense.


----------



## Gem (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha assumed:


> Another conservative who is OK with killing an unborn even though they believe God says it's wrong to do so



Careful there, Sangha.  You've allowed your prejudices about people who question abortion to get the better of you.  I never mentioned anything about God or whether or not s/he should be involved in the abortion debate.  In fact, I consider myself a libertarian - you've pretty much gotten every single thing about me wrong by assuming based on a very short post...and made yourself look like a bit of an ass in the process.

What I asked was - if I am willing to say that ending a life in its very earliest stages should be legal is some circumstances...why can't people at least acknowledge that they are, in fact, ending a life?

Now, take a deep breath and try again...without the thinly-veiled prejudices regarding Conservatives and Christians.


----------



## Yukon. (Jun 30, 2010)

ConHog,

Leave it alone my son it is beyond your intellectual capacity. I will continue to pray for your soul.

Hail Mary,
ex-Fr. Yukon


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Yukon. said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> > Sangha... I agree... if abortion is murder... it is murder in every case.
> ...



You should learn to read. I support abortion on demand


----------



## ConHog (Jun 30, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



what are you babbling about? if we wanted a strict Constitutional view of it, then we need a SCTOUS ruling on when exactly is a fetus a human being and anything after that point is murder period. We will NEVER get that because then we will be in a situation where some women aren't allowed to terminate babies produced by rape or incest, or when it is a danger to the mother. In the meantime women who simply use abortion as a just in case method of birth control take advantage of that fact. 

It's that simple, and arguing either way doesn't make sense.


----------



## ConHog (Jun 30, 2010)

Yukon. said:


> ConHog,
> 
> Leave it alone my son it is beyond your intellectual capacity. I will continue to pray for your soul.
> 
> ...



In other words , you dont have the balls to admit you made shit up about me? LOL what happened to your balls did one of your 8 y/o rape victims bite them off?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> No, *THE* definition is different than yours



Actually, the definition is different than Wikipedia's.

Main Entry: *child* 
Pronunciation:  \&#712;ch&#299;(-&#601ld\
Function:   _noun_ 
Inflected Form(s):  _plural_ *chil·dren*  \&#712;chil-dr&#601;n, -d&#601;rn\
Usage:   _often attributive_ 
Etymology: Middle English, from  Old English _cild;_ akin to Gothic _kilthei_ womb, and  perhaps to Sanskrit _jat&#803;hara_ belly
Date: before 12th  century
*1 a* *:* an  unborn or recently born person *b* _dialect_ *:*  a female infant
*2 a* *:* a young  person especially between infancy and youth *b* *:*  a childlike or childish person *c* *:* a  person not yet of age
*3*usually *childe*    \&#712;ch&#299;(-&#601ld\  _archaic_ *:* a youth of noble birth
*4 a* *:*  a son or daughter of human parents *b* *:* descendant
*5* *:* one strongly influenced by another or by a place or  state of affairs
*6* *:* product, result <barbed wireis truly a child of the plains   W. P.  Webb>
 *child·less*  \&#712;ch&#299;(-&#601l(d)-l&#601;s\  _adjective_ 
 *child·less·ness* _noun_ 
 *with child* *:* pregnant



Child - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

But keep spouting your erroneous one, it adds so much credibility to your opponents.

Rule of thumb for you in the future: If you have to lie to make your point, your point is probably wrong.


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Gem said:


> sangha assumed:
> 
> 
> > Another conservative who is OK with killing an unborn even though they believe God says it's wrong to do so
> ...



I'm not buying what you're trying to sell

There is no reason to limit abortions in any way without bringing God into it.

And you have a strange idea of libertarianism if you think it supports giving the power to decide who has a baby to the govt.

And abortions end pregnancies.


----------



## ConHog (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Gem said:
> 
> 
> > sangha assumed:
> ...




That's weird cuz I know some people who don't believe in God, but they are certainly against murder, and heck some of them DO consider abortion to be murder, even though God didn't tell them that.


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > No, *THE* definition is different than yours
> ...



Not according to the law
law.com Law Dictionary



> child
> n. 1) a person's natural offspring. 2) a person 14 years and under. A "child" should be distinguished from a "minor" who is anyone under 18 in almost all states.
> 
> See also: minor



And we are talking about the law

And not according to the medical dictionary
Medical Dictionary Online



> Child
> A person 6 to 12 years of age. An individual 2 to 5 years old is CHILD, PRESCHOOL.




And we are talking about a medical issue

Again, I'll repeat that you dont know how to read a dictionary


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 30, 2010)

Yukon. said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > Two brothers charged with molesting 10-year-old girl | ajc.com
> ...



You have unusual views for a defrocked priest.


----------



## Nonelitist (Jun 30, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > No, *THE* definition is different than yours
> ...





Sangha is suddenly silent as to the definition of Fetus.

Thats right little boy, you have been schooled.  Take your place in the corner, get your pacifier and try to educate yourself before speaking.


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

ConHog said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



This issue has been settled in Common Law; a person is someone who is born. That's why no one has ever been convicted of murder for killing a fetus.



> We will NEVER get that because then we will be in a situation where some women aren't allowed to terminate babies produced by rape or incest, or when it is a danger to the mother. In the meantime women who simply use abortion as a just in case method of birth control take advantage of that fact.



And conjob continues with the delusion that some abortions are not birth control or that there is something wrong with birth control.


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

ConHog said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Gem said:
> ...



The fact that you know lots of stupid people does not surprise anyone, I'm sure.

But I noticed that you couldn't justify the "abortion is murder" without bringing God into it.


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Keep telling yourselves that. Maybe someday, even you'll beleive it


----------



## Gem (Jun 30, 2010)

Sangha Wrote:


> I'm not buying what you're trying to sell



I wasn't aware that I was selling anything...I thought I was discussing abortion. 



> There is no reason to limit abortions in any way without bringing God into it.



Sure there is.  There is a human being developing inside another human being.  At some point in time, the smaller human beings rights need to be considered.  The abortion debate should address at what point in time the small human's rights come into question.  That has nothing to do with God...and everything to do with human rights - which is very libertarian.



> And you have a strange idea of libertarianism if you think it supports giving the power to decide who has a baby to the govt.



And I find the idea that a woman could kill a viable human because it "inconveniences" her to be a violation of that human's rights.  

I don't think that there is a set definition for what makes a Republican, a Democrat, a Libertarian.  If some libertarians disagree with me on this matter, thats fine...there are others who will agree with me that at some point in a pregnancy - the rights of BOTH humans involved need to be considered.


You need to get away from this notion that the only people questioning abortion are Conservative Christian fanatics.  Polls show conclusively that while most people identify themselves as pro-choice...when questioned most people support abortion with limits - I'm not the unusual one here...people arguing that a woman should be able to abort at any time for any reason are.


----------



## ConHog (Jun 30, 2010)

Gem said:


> Sangha Wrote:
> 
> 
> > I'm not buying what you're trying to sell
> ...



Your failure is in trying to deal with Sangha like he's an adult capable of adult like discussion. He is not.


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Gem said:


> Sangha Wrote:
> 
> 
> > I'm not buying what you're trying to sell
> ...



I see!! Abortion IS murder, except when you think it's not.

You claim that a fetus has rights. This has no basis in law. None.

That's why no one has ever been convicted for murder for an abortion. Even when abortion was illegal, no one was convicted of murder. The entire history of our legal system shows you are wrong, but you will continue to insist that "abortion is murder" except when it's not.

Like I said, you can't justify opposition to abortion without bringing God into it. You didn't bring God into it, but you didn't justify your opposition to some abortions either. All you did was claim you are right because you mistakenly believe that a fetus has rights.

They don't. That's why it is legal to kill them. For any reason the mother chooses to kill them.



> And you have a strange idea of libertarianism if you think it supports giving the power to decide who has a baby to the govt.



And I find the idea that a woman could kill a viable human because it "inconveniences" her to be a violation of that human's rights.  [/quote]

A fetus has no rights. None.




> I don't think that there is a set definition for what makes a Republican, a Democrat, a Libertarian.  If some libertarians disagree with me on this matter, thats fine...there are others who will agree with me that at some point in a pregnancy - the rights of BOTH humans involved need to be considered.



Libertarianism is a word with an actual meaning. It does not mean "whatever I want it to mean"


You need to get away from this notion that the only people questioning abortion are Conservative Christian fanatics.  Polls show conclusively that while most people identify themselves as pro-choice...when questioned most people support abortion with limits - I'm not the unusual one here...people arguing that a woman should be able to abort at any time for any reason are.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> I don't see how "abortion is OK in certain cases" can be justified.



I can prove you are lying about that if you want me to, but I prefer to allow you to admit you misspoke and leave it at that.

Before you offer a knee jerk response like you typically do, consider that the only way your statement can possibly be true is if you support on demand abortions at any time during pregnancy, which would include third trimester and extremely late term abortions, up to and including after labor starts. Unless you can categorically state that you are willing to kill a child while it is being born you can think of times when it is not justified to allow a mother to abort.

Before you jump up and make a real fool of yourself by claiming that no one anywhere believes that, that is exactly the official policy in China regarding abortions. 

The question now is, are you going to retract that statement, or are you going to force me to prove you are a liar?



sangha said:


> The anti-choice crowd lies all the time when they call abortion "murder", but says its OK to murder sometimes, even though they believe God is against murder



The anti abortion side is not subject to your definitions of their motives. I know atheists who are anti abortion, are you going to try to claim they think it is wrong because God says it is? If so, I will gladly invite them to come here and mock you until you never make a post on this board again.



sangha said:


> The opinions of reasonable people can be supported by facts. The anti-choice crowd has nothing but faith, and they ignore the facts. And it's the anti-choice Talibornagains who are trying to limit other peoples' options.



You just proved that you are unreasonable.

The facts are that the anti abortion side is much more complex than you want to admit, but your opinion of them does not change even though they are acting contrary to you beliefs. You are disregarding facts and refusing to admit your opinion does not explain the observed events. There is a phrase I like to use to explain your actions here, it is blind faith. You are your enemy.



sangha said:


> The idea that anyone is limiting the anti-choicers ability or right to express their opinion is just the whiny delusions of those who can't bear to be criticized by people with differing opinions.



One of the hardest lessons for anyone to learn is how easy it is to see the faults in others that they have themselves. What you are describing here is yourself, you are even claiming that their views are wrong because they do not fit your definition of them. If anyone in this thread is unable to accept differing opinions it is you, because almost everyone here is agreeing with you that abortion is justified here, yet you are still arguing with them that they are wrong.



sangha said:


> It's the anti-choice crowd that passes laws that limit a doctors ability to express their opinions to their patients. It's the anti-choice crowd that want to limit the discussion about sex ed to abstinence. It's the anti-choice talibornagains who want to limit choice BY LAW; not the pro-choice crowd



It is the pro abortion poster here who is lying about the motives of others. The anti abortion group is being honest, and has so far not accused anyone here of not meaning what they are saying. But go on, keep defending your faith, it amuses me to ridicule you.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 30, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> Sangha... I agree... if abortion is murder... it is murder in every case.
> 
> I have stated that.... so I am not a hypocrite in this matter.  You may not like or agree with my view, but I am not a hypocrite.



I believe he is, we will see shortly.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 30, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Bullshit


----------



## Nonelitist (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...




No... we are talking about my opinion... we were never discussing the legal definition.

Try again little boy.  Actually.. you should stop... you are looking more and more like and idiot the more you say.


----------



## ConHog (Jun 30, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see how "abortion is OK in certain cases" can be justified.
> ...



Damn, I must wait to rep QW again.............


Sangha, you have been rooted out as the lying scum that you are.


----------



## IanC (Jun 30, 2010)

Abortion is the choice to refuse responsibility for a life. If no one is willing to sponsor that fetus, and the main person is the mother, then that fetus is out of luck. It is still murder but we as a society have decided that abortion is the best of typically bad options. I don't want someone else's unwanted child, and I don't want the govt to have to take care of the unwanted child, so I look away and wash my hands. That is the ugly reality of abortion. I am not proud of the decision of the individuals involved that produce the unwanted child, or society's decision to abort unwanted children because they are inconvenient, or my decision to want to spend my resources on my own family rather than some nameless unknown potential child.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Gem said:
> 
> 
> > sangha assumed:
> ...



Another example of blind faith, denying that facts exist because doing so would change your world view so much that you would be incapable of handling the cataclysm. This is exactly the mentality that led to creation science, maybe you should move to Texas and join them. They probably need more help in teaching people to ignore facts.


----------



## Gem (Jun 30, 2010)

Sangha,

You continue to attribute statements and beliefs to me that I do not have, nor have said.  If you want to debate with imaginary "pro-life" people that is fine, but I'm not going to indulge you by continuing to tell you what I think, only to have you respond by arguing against someone else's points.


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see how "abortion is OK in certain cases" can be justified.
> ...



I see you can't justify opposition to abortion without bringing God into it, so you are trying to divert with nonsense questions



> The question now is, are you going to retract that statement, or are you going to force me to prove you are a liar?



Give it your best shot




			
				QW said:
			
		

> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > The anti-choice crowd lies all the time when they call abortion "murder", but says its OK to murder sometimes, even though they believe God is against murder
> ...



I'm sure there are plenty of atheist morons in the anti-choice mob. I still don't see a justification for being opposed to abortion without bringing God into it




			
				QW said:
			
		

> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > The idea that anyone is limiting the anti-choicers ability or right to express their opinion is just the whiny delusions of those who can't bear to be criticized by people with differing opinions.
> ...



My expressing my opinion does not limit the ability of the anti-choice Talibornagains to express their opinion. You lied when you claimed the pro-choice movement was trying to limit the talibornagains right to express their opinion.

And now you're running away from what you actually said and trying to pretend you whined about the pro-choice criticisms of the anti-choice crowd. 

It's you who is trying to limit the expressions of opinions by lying and mischaracterizing the pro-choicers criticism as censorship.




> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > It's the anti-choice crowd that passes laws that limit a doctors ability to express their opinions to their patients. It's the anti-choice crowd that want to limit the discussion about sex ed to abstinence. It's the anti-choice talibornagains who want to limit choice BY LAW; not the pro-choice crowd
> ...



I see you can't deny that it is the anti-choicers who are trying to limit the free speech rights of others BY LAW. Instead, you try to divert attention away from your cowardly refusal to address these FACTS with a dishonest accusation



> The anti abortion group is being honest, and has so far not accused anyone here of not meaning what they are saying. But go on, keep defending your faith, it amuses me to ridicule you.



You lied when you claimed the pro-choice side was trying to limit the anti-choice freedom to express their opinions. That's why you're trying to pretend you never said it


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Wingnuts think that taking the power to choose away from people, and giving it to the govt, is how to limit the govts power and get the govt out of people's lives


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



This may surprise you, but this thread is not about you and your opinion



> we were never discussing the legal definition.



I guess you don't care about the Constitution.


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Gem said:
> ...



Once again, QU whiffs on justifying opposition to abortion without bringing God into it


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Gem said:


> Sangha,
> 
> You continue to attribute statements and beliefs to me that I do not have, nor have said.  If you want to debate with imaginary "pro-life" people that is fine, but I'm not going to indulge you by continuing to tell you what I think, only to have you respond by arguing against someone else's points.



And another one whiffs on providing a non-religious justification for opposing abortions


----------



## ConHog (Jun 30, 2010)

Sangha is like a pitbull, just won't let go.

Listen dude, plenty of cultures consider murder to be wrong even without religion of any kind being involved.


----------



## Nonelitist (Jun 30, 2010)

No... we are talking about my opinion... [/quote]

This may surprise you, but this thread is not about you and your opinion



> we were never discussing the legal definition.



I guess you don't care about the Constitution.[/QUOTE]


Then why did you question my definition of Child to start this whole thing you stupid fuck?

Constitution doesn't comment on the definition of child.. what is your point?


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

ConHog said:


> Sangha is like a pitbull, just won't let go.
> 
> Listen dude, plenty of cultures consider murder to be wrong even without religion of any kind being involved.



And another wingnut whiffs on providing a non-religious justification for opposing abortions


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> No... we are talking about my opinion...



This may surprise you, but this thread is not about you and your opinion



> we were never discussing the legal definition.



I guess you don't care about the Constitution.[/QUOTE]


Then why did you question my definition of Child to start this whole thing you stupid fuck?

Constitution doesn't comment on the definition of child.. what is your point?[/QUOTE]

Our legal system, as defined by the Constitution, defines a person as someone who has been born. Under our Constitution, only "persons" have rights.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Are you trying to claim that Merriam-Webster is not a dictionary?

As for your links, it seems they contradict each other. One of them even contradicts itself, and you are trying to use this to prove *I *cannot read?


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I guess you're another one who doesn't know how to use a dictionary. That's why you don't understand why one definition can contradict another


----------



## Nonelitist (Jun 30, 2010)

I showed you definitions from multiple sources saying a "CHILD" can be defined as an unborn fetus.

What the hell are you trying to say?  Make some sense little boy.


----------



## xotoxi (Jun 30, 2010)

chanel said:


> Most people would agree that rape, incest, and/or the life of the mother are compelling arguments for an abortion.  This poor child suffered all three.
> 
> And while this story is disturbing and shocking, I am certain it happens a whole lot more than we know.



I'm sure it does happen a lot more than we know.

The combined population of KY and WVa is 6,133,890!


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> This issue has been settled in Common Law; a person is someone who is born. That's why no one has ever been convicted of murder for killing a fetus.



You lose. Google Scott Peterson and Adrian Estrada, tow people who have been convicted for murdering unborn children, aka fetus.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...




Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League Homepage

Read it and cry like a baby.


----------



## Nonelitist (Jun 30, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > This issue has been settled in Common Law; a person is someone who is born. That's why no one has ever been convicted of murder for killing a fetus.
> ...




Lets see how the weasel squirms around this one.


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Gem said:


> Sangha,
> 
> You continue to attribute statements and beliefs to me that I do not have, nor have said.  If you want to debate with imaginary "pro-life" people that is fine, but I'm not going to indulge you by continuing to tell you what I think, only to have you respond by arguing against someone else's points.



I did not attribute any statements or beliefs to you besides the ones you have claimed for yourself.

This is just an excuse because there is no way to justify opposition to abortions without bringing God into it


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



No, you're just proving that you not only don't know how to read a dictionary, you don't know how to read a post.

Dictionaries contradict themselves regularly.


----------



## Nonelitist (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...




So are you saying that these dictionary are not giving a correct definition of Child as including a fetus?

It is becoming more and more obvious you have not a clue what you are talking about.


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > This issue has been settled in Common Law; a person is someone who is born. That's why no one has ever been convicted of murder for killing a fetus.
> ...



"Texas Man Gets Death for Killing Fetus." (Also, the fetus carrier) - Feministing


> Adrian Estrada, 23, was convicted Friday of one count of capital murder for the death of Stephanie Sanchez and the fetus, of which he was the father



Convicted, not for killing the fetus, but for killing the "Stephanie Sanchez *and* her fetus"

Scott Peterson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Scott Lee Peterson (born October 24, 1972) was convicted of the murder of his wife, Laci Peterson, and their unborn child in Modesto, CA



Again, convicted for killing *both* the mother and her fetus


----------



## Nonelitist (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



They were convicted for 2 murders each.. one of the mother and one of the child.


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > ConHog said:
> ...




LOL!!!

I don't see any non-religious justification for opposing abortion. All I see is another moron claiming there is a non-religious justification for opposing abortion.

Try again


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> I see you can't justify opposition to abortion without bringing God into it, so you are trying to divert with nonsense questions
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Where did I bring God into it?

So far I have not even expressed my personal views on abortion, which makes you a liar, and you even lie that I am defending my position by claiming that God said so.

Let me see if I can explain this to you in simple terms, the fact that you are unable to wrap your unschooled intellect around a concept does not prove that that concept does not exist. In other words, it does not matter if you believe it, because your belief does not affect reality.



sangha said:


> I see you can't deny that it is the anti-choicers who are trying to limit the free speech rights of others BY LAW. Instead, you try to divert attention away from your cowardly refusal to address these FACTS with a dishonest accusation



The only one who is even approaching denying people their free speech here is you. You are the one claiming that these people cannot have an opinion that you find incomprehensible, all they have tried to do is point out that you are an idiot because you think they are saying something you are not.



sangha said:


> You lied when you claimed the pro-choice side was trying to limit the anti-choice freedom to express their opinions. That's why you're trying to pretend you never said it



Show me where I said anyone is trying to keep anyone from saying anything. The pro abortion side likes to lie, that does not equate to them trying to keep the other side from talking.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



I just said his argument is bullshit. That has nothing to do with my position, which you might understand if you ever bothered to ask my position.


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



No, I'm saying it's not the right definition for this discussion, just as the common use definition of the word "consideration" has no relevance to a legal discussion of contracts


----------



## Nonelitist (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



You questioned my use of the word Child to describe a fetus.  We were not discussing the legal definition.  
Prove me wrong or shut your idiot mouth.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Every time I have mentioned God in this discussion it is to point out that you are the one who keeps bringing Him up. Until you can point to some evidence that I am using God to defend my position you have no chance of convincing anyone that you can even read.


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



The Court record only mentions one conviction
http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/O...O2.ASP?OPINIONID=19805&FILENAME=AP-75,634.PDF



> Appellant was convicted of capital murder for murdering Stephanie Sanchez (Sanchez) and
> their thirteen-week-old unborn child on December 12, 2005. See §§ 19.03(a)(7)(A), TEX. PEN. CODE



Once conviction


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



*A person 6 to 12 years of age. An individual 2 to 5 years old is  CHILD, PRESCHOOL.*



That doesn't even make sense, and is not in proper English, yet you are trying to use it to prove I cannot read a dictionary. all it proves is you can find anything on the Internet if you look hard enough. One the other hand, the definition I used came from a real dictionary, one that is recognized by every school in this country.


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Where did I bring God into it?



Where did I say you brought God into it?



> So far I have not even expressed my personal views on abortion, which makes you a liar, and you even lie that I am defending my position by claiming that God said so.



Never said that. Maybe it was the voices in your head



> Let me see if I can explain this to you in simple terms, the fact that you are unable to wrap your unschooled intellect around a concept does not prove that that concept does not exist. In other words, it does not matter if you believe it, because your belief does not affect reality.



The fact that you still can't post a non-religious justification for opposing abortion supports my claim that it doesn't exist.




			
				GW said:
			
		

> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > I see you can't deny that it is the anti-choicers who are trying to limit the free speech rights of others BY LAW. Instead, you try to divert attention away from your cowardly refusal to address these FACTS with a dishonest accusation
> ...



I see that free speech is just another of the many things you don't understand

Even if I had said that "these people cannot have an opinion that I find incomprehensible" it still wouldn't be a denial of their free speech rights.

Once again, wingnuts show their intolerance for criticism by claiming censorship. 




			
				QW said:
			
		

> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > You lied when you claimed the pro-choice side was trying to limit the anti-choice freedom to express their opinions. That's why you're trying to pretend you never said it
> ...



You said it in an earlier post. I'll dig it up


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Exactly, killing them both is killing the fetus. If I was convicted of killing your mother and father would you try to argue that I only killed your mother?


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

I am reposting QW's post with the part where he claims censorship bolded



Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > ConHog said:
> ...



For the record, I have done nothing to stop anyone from expressing their opinion


----------



## Nonelitist (Jun 30, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Sangha... you are probably the most ignorant person I have ever talked to.  Even your lib buddies have bailed on this thread and abandoned you to your own stupidity.

You either aren't an English speaker as your first language or are uneducated.  Either way, you have been shown to be a hypocritical idiot.


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Actually, when you call something bullshit, you are taking a position. Maybe it works differently in wingnut world. I wouldn't know about that


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Nonelitist said:
> ...



Sure we are. We are talking about the law, idiot


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



You definately belong in Texas at the ICR.

Mailing Address (for regular mail): Institute for Creation  Research P. O. Box 59029
Dallas, Texas 75229 Business Address (for visits or  overnight mail): Institute for Creation Research 1806  Royal Lane Dallas, Texas 75229 Contact them, I bet they could use you for your ability to ignore facts and argue that black is white.


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I have never said that you used God to justify your opposition to abortion. I have said that you have completely failed to provide a non-religious justification to oppose abortion


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



More proof that you don't know how to read a dictionary or the law

In legal terms "CHILD, PRESCHOOL" means that someone 2-5 is a CHILD who belongs to the subgroup "PRESCHOOL". It's like the polices' "Man, Caucasian"


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Wrong. The law they were charged with requires the death of the mother, which has ALWAYS been considered murder. The law does not charge someone with murder for "killing a fetus". It charges someone with murder for killing the mother and the fetus.

If you killed my mother and my father, you'd be charged with two counts of murder. Both Perterson and Estrada were charged with one count.

You fail


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



And still no non-religious justification for opposing abortion

Once again, you can't defend your own words.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Appellant was convicted of capital murder for *murdering Stephanie  Sanchez (Sanchez) and
their thirteen-week-old unborn child* on December 12, 2005

Look at that, he managed to prove himself wrong twice in one post.

First, the record clearly indicates that he was convicted for killing both of them, not just the mother.
Second, it clearly calls the 13 week old fetus a child, thus proving that child is the proper, legal, word to use to describe a fetus.







You are clearly superior in debate skills to everyone here, and we should all just run home and hide, never to post again.


----------



## ConHog (Jun 30, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



hes a fucking moron, you tell him point blank "some people who don't believe in God consider abortion to be murder" and comes back with "another wingnut can't give a non religious reason to oppose abortion"   atheists using God to oppose abortion, ok then.........


----------



## ConHog (Jun 30, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Nonelitist said:
> ...



That gonna leave a mark


----------



## Nonelitist (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...




No... we aren't.

My opinion is that when an egg is fertilized, it is a life.  That is the basis of my opinion.

That isn't the laws definition.  So I understand that my definition isn't the laws.

So what?.. I still stand by my convictions.


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

ConHog said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



They were convicted on ONE COUNT of murder


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Where did I bring God into it?
> ...


 

I don't have to post a justification for being anti abortion, because I have not said I am anti abortion.


----------



## Nonelitist (Jun 30, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Nonelitist said:
> ...




Argument over.  Sangha.. you lost and lost bad.  Your lib friends must be pround to have such a statesmen representing them....hahahahaha

Stupid child.


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Nonelitist said:
> ...



Your opinion on what "a life" is has no bearing on the law.

And your "convictions" have no basis in fact. If a fertilized egg, which isn't even a fetus yet, has rights, then mothers could be prosecuted for smoking, drinking alcohol, or doing anything that could harm the fetus.

A fetus has no rights, which is why you can't post anything in the law that says a fetus has rights


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I never said anything about whether or not you are anti-choice. You said that there's a non-religious justification for opposing abortion.

But there isn't. That's why you refuse to post one.


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



And another wingnut has been reduced to posting nothing but insults.

I accept your surrender


----------



## Nonelitist (Jun 30, 2010)

Man charged with murder of unborn baby* - Police Blotter - The Charleston Gazette - West Virginia News and Sports -


Man charged with murder of unborn baby... mother didn't die.


----------



## Meister (Jun 30, 2010)

blu said:


> Two brothers charged with molesting 10-year-old girl | ajc.com
> 
> A 10 year old was raped by two family members (incest) and impregnated, she got an abortion. Was she wrong? Should a ten year old have to carry a baby to term?



I'm against most abortions, but rape....and the medical welfare of the mother are the two exceptions in my belief.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> I am reposting QW's post with the part where he claims censorship bolded
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nice try.






You are not allowing your opponents the same options because you are insisting that the only possible justification for thir position is religion, and you are further insisting that they cannot be anti abortion and recognize it is sometimes medically justified. You are the one who thinks the pro abortion side is wonderful because they can recognize nuances and have different opinions, and still come together in support of abortion, yet you deny the anti abortion side is anything but partisan hacks, insist that they just parrot talking points, and are generally incapable of thinking.

None of that says that you are telling them they cannot talk, it is just your opinion of them and their motives. If you were capable of intelligent thought you would know that, and understand the differences. As you are actually incapable of thought, cannot recognize facts when they are right in front of you, and have blind faith that you are the only one who is right, you are doing exactly what I said. You are denying that your opponents are capable fo thinking for themselves, even when they agree that abortion is sometimes justified.

And you think they are hypocrites.


----------



## Meister (Jun 30, 2010)

Epsilon Delta said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



 What never heard of freedom of thought?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Jun 30, 2010)

blu said:


> Two brothers charged with molesting 10-year-old girl | ajc.com
> 
> A 10 year old was raped by two family members (incest) and impregnated, she got an abortion. Was she wrong? Should a ten year old have to carry a baby to term?



Why you can't you idiot liberals be honest? The ten year old girl was not related to the brothers.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Yes, my position is that his argument is bullshit. That has nothing to do with my position on abortion, which you do not know.


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> Man charged with murder of unborn baby* - Police Blotter - The Charleston Gazette - West Virginia News and Sports -
> 
> 
> Man charged with murder of unborn baby... mother didn't die.



"charged" =/= "convicted"


----------



## ConHog (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...




They in fact can be prosecuted in many states

Laws Against Pregnant Mothers Smoking, Using Drugs by Joel Hendon


in fact FIFTEEN states consider it to be child abuse

http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_SADP.pdf


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



I do not have to provide any justification for being against abortion until I state my position is against abortion.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



It still isn't proper English, therefore it is not a valid definition.

BTW, when did preschool become a medical definition? Is school a phase people go through as they grow?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 30, 2010)

ConHog said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



He only deserves one thing.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > I am reposting QW's post with the part where he claims censorship bolded
> ...



Really? I'm "not allowing"???

Are you really so deluded you think I can stop anyone from posting whatever they want?

That's inane and insane!!



> You are the one who thinks the pro abortion side is wonderful because they can recognize nuances and have different opinions, and still come together in support of abortion, yet you deny the anti abortion side is anything but partisan hacks, insist that they just parrot talking points, and are generally incapable of thinking.



You are lying. Please tell us where I said " the pro abortion side is wonderful because they can recognize nuances and have different opinions" OR " the anti abortion side is anything but partisan hacks, insist that they just parrot talking points, and are generally incapable of thinking"

Liar. Once again, you will go running away from your own words, and say "I never said that"



> None of that says that you are telling them they cannot talk, it is just your opinion of them and their motives.



I see. You're saying it's wrong for me to have an opinion on their motives, but it's OK for you to have an opinion on other peoples' motives



> If you were capable of intelligent thought you would know that, and understand the differences. As you are actually incapable of thought, cannot recognize facts when they are right in front of you, and have blind faith that you are the only one who is right, you are doing exactly what I said. You are denying that your opponents are capable fo thinking for themselves, even when they agree that abortion is sometimes justified.



More lies. Please show us where I was "denying that your opponents are capable fo thinking for themselves"

And maybe someday you'll get around to posting that mythical non-religious justification for opposing abortion



> And you think they are hypocrites.



They are hypocrits


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I see. You didn't take a position on abortion, but you did. 

And still no non-religious justification for opposing abortion


----------



## ConHog (Jun 30, 2010)

Sangha ignores the fact that 15 states consider using drugs while pregnant to be child abuse. Wonder why


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> > Man charged with murder of unborn baby* - Police Blotter - The Charleston Gazette - West Virginia News and Sports -
> ...



http://www.1stcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/PDFOpinion.asp?OpinionId=86496

This opinion directly addresses the conviction of a person for killing an unborn child, and found that it is legal.


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

ConHog said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Nonelitist said:
> ...



Wrong. Even your link contradicts what you said



> No state specifically criminalizes drug use during pregnancy


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



You don't "have to" do anything. However, reasonable people are willing to support their claims with evidence

You claimed tht there is a non-religious justification for opposing abortion. Too bad you don't have the courage to defend your claim by posting one.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



The state of Florida will specifically take your baby away if you consistently test positive while pregnant !


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...








You really do have a problem with comprehending English, don't you?


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Still can't find that mythical non-religious justification for being anti-choice, I see

Maybe if you post a pic a few dozen times, people will forget your failure to defend your own claims


----------



## Charles_Main (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



So what your saying is unless you think it is a sin against god there is no justification to oppose it? You are out of your mind. I am not religious, I do not believe in god, But I find Abortion for any other reason than the most extreme to be a horrifying thing. I am not opposed to abortion being available, I am opposed to the way it is used, mostly as birth control after the fact by people who simply do not want to be bothered with a kid.

So how does that jive with your, there are no none religious arguments against Abortion theory.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...








The nutty thing here is that you claim atheists who oppose abortion do so on religious grounds.


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Nonelitist said:
> ...



The man was not convicted of "killing a fetus". Your link agrees with me that "A jury found appellant, Joe Nathan Sanders, Jr., guilty of capital murder in the deaths of Angela Alex *and *her unborn child."

If the mother hadn't died, there wouldn't be a murder conviction


----------



## ConHog (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Murder is not an ideal exclusive to religion fool.


----------



## ConHog (Jun 30, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Isn't that weird..............


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Yes, there is not non-religious justification for opposing abortion. 



> You are out of your mind. I am not religious, I do not believe in god, But I find Abortion for any other reason than the most extreme to be a horrifying thing. I am not opposed to abortion being available, I am opposed to the way it is used, mostly as birth control after the fact by people who simply do not want to be bothered with a kid.



And you haven't posted any non-religious justification for opposing abortion. All you do is state your OPINION that abortion is "a horrifying thing" with nothing to justify your position.

And ALL abortions are birth control, moron



> So how does that jive with your, there are no none religious arguments against Abortion theory.



Simple. Like all the other atheist anti-choice morons, you have completely failed to provide a justification for your opinion. All you did was state your opinion. You did nothing to back it up.


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



You really do have a problem defending your own claim, don't you?

I still don't see any non-religious justification for opposing abortion. All I see are claims that it exists.


----------



## ConHog (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



What are you babbling about? I don't need God to tell me that murdering someone is wrong.


----------



## Meister (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Why would anyone have to "justify" his opinion?  It's "his" opinion...nuff said.


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



The fact that you have to lie proves you've got no argument

Please show where I said "atheists who oppose abortion do so on religious grounds"

Or will you run away from your own claims again?


----------



## ConHog (Jun 30, 2010)

Meister said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



LOL - Dude that fucking moron has called my opinion a lie so many times I've lost count. Now how can a opinion be a lie?


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

ConHog said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



And no one said it is


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

ConHog said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



No one "has to" justify their opinion. On USMB, cowards are free to run away from their claims when challenged.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 30, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



He is going to claim it is a religious argument because otherwise you would be for abortion.

this is how his mind works. He has decided that the only possible reason to oppose abortion is on religious grounds. This makes him feel superior to everyone who opposes abortion because they are all either religious nut cases, or idiots who have been deceived by religious nutcases. It will not matter what argument anyone uses, or who comes up with it, they are all based on religion, therefore he cannot loose. It is exactly the same mindset that religious nuts use to prove that the Earth is not billions of years old by using ever piece of evidence to prove their point. In other words, he is nothing more than a nutcase who ignores facts to insist that he is right. Which is why I put on my t-shirt when I speak to him.


----------



## Meister (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Claims = Opinions?


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



No moron. I am saying that Charles has provided no justification for his opinion. All he did was state his opinion.

If you could post a non-religious justification, I would not call it religious. But so far, no one has posted one. All I see is non-religious people (and others) claiming that such a justification exists.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Now you are psychic and can see into alternate realities.


----------



## ConHog (Jun 30, 2010)

Meister said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > ConHog said:
> ...



My OPINION is that Sangha is a bloody vagina. I have no intention of providing proof however.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Which claim is it I have a problem defending?


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Meister said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > ConHog said:
> ...



Saying that "a non-religious justification for opposing abortion exists" is not "stating an opinion". It is a "statement of fact" that is mistaken

Either the justification exists, or it does not. There is nothing about the claim that makes it "an opinion", just as saying "the Earth exists" is not "an opinion". It's a fact


----------



## Meister (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



How about an "opinion" from an athiest that thinks abortion kills a life?
Not every athiest believes in abortion....in fact, I know of one.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Did you or did you not repeatedly claim that there is no non religious argument against abortion? If there is no non religious argument against abortion, then everyone who opposes it must do so based on a religious argument.

QED

Atheists oppose abortion on religious grounds.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...





sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



You just proved that you are a liar.


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Another wingnut I've reduced to name calling

Still can't find that non-religious justification to oppose abortion, I see.


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Your claim that a non-religious justification for opposing abortion exists.


----------



## Meister (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



I gave you one.


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Meister said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



An opinion is not a justification; it's an opinion.

And I know that there are atheists who oppose abortion. However, they can't seem to justify their opposition


----------



## manu1959 (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



natural selection...and evolution ......nature should be allowed to take its natural course without the interference of man....it is the only way we will evolve to our ultimate state of being....


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Wrong. Some atheists are too stupid to realize that they have no justification for their position. They just feel that way, with no logic and no facts to support their opinion.


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Meister said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



No you didn't. All you did was state an opinion

opinion =/= justification

from dictionary.com



> jus·ti·fi·ca·tion&#8194; &#8194;/&#716;d&#658;&#652;st&#601;f&#618;&#712;ke&#618;&#643;&#601;n/  Show Spelled[juhs-tuh-fi-key-shuhn]  Show IPA
> &#8211;noun
> 1. a *reason, fact, circumstance, or explanation *that justifies or defends: His insulting you was ample justification for you to leave the party.
> 2. an act of justifying: The painter's justification of his failure to finish on time didn't impress me.
> 3. the state of being justified.


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

manu1959 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



So there are atheists who oppose medical care?


----------



## ConHog (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Dude, you're worse than Bertie about just admitting you lost. Go drink some kool aid, chill out then come back and fight another stupid fight.


----------



## manu1959 (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> manu1959 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



you asked for a non-religious justification...i gave you one...now you want to shift topics...good for you...


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

manu1959 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > manu1959 said:
> ...



Nope. No atheist believes that. Your "non-religious justification" says "nature should be allowed" as if "nature" had it's own intentions.

Atheists don't believe that "nature" has a mind of its own nor do they oppose the "interference of man" when it comes to medical procedures


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

ConHog said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



ANother wingnut who has been demoted to sniping from the sidelines

And another wingnut who thinks there is a non-religious justification for opposing abortion, but is too frightened to post it


----------



## Charles_Main (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



lol so I am not justified in not wanted to see any person killed? Dude you are an idiot. You do not have to be religious to be against murder.


----------



## ConHog (Jun 30, 2010)

The funniest part is, once again Sangha thinks he's "winning"


----------



## sangha (Jun 30, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



A "fetus" is not "a person". "Abortion" is not "murder" and has never been considered murder by the law in the country


----------



## manu1959 (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> manu1959 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



atheists do not believe god created heaven and earth and all living thngs...they believe it was a cosmic moment and that we evolved from nothing into what we are via evlolution and natural selection...if they are true to their belief system they should not interfer with that process .. or they are no different than cafeteria catholics....


----------



## Charles_Main (Jun 30, 2010)

How about, because everyone in the US has the right to "LIFE LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS"

Even a potential person IMO. which a fetus is by any reasonable definition. 

Man you take the cake dude.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 30, 2010)

ConHog said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Where have you been? 
"danger to the mother" Who determines that? A doctor? 
LOL. Many Doctors, just like any other profession, will do anything for $. 
Again, a strict Constitutionalist would never grant the government more power. In this case the power would be to not prosecute the woman that paid off a doctor to get a "danger to the mother" free pass and to prosecute the poor woman that can not afford that get out of jail free card.
Strict conservatives live in the real world. Please join us.


----------



## ConHog (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



As usual , wrong. Prior to Roe Vs Wade. abortion was in fact illegal in 30 states

Abortion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## manu1959 (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



and the death penalty is not murder either as it is a criminal and not a person and is also sanctioned by the state....


----------



## Charles_Main (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha Might very well be the most disgusting person I have ever come across. Not to mention the least intelligent. His arguments are like a cirlce jerk, Where he keeps making the most ignorant and appalling comments, and then says. "see I am winning"

The Idea that only a religious person has a justification to be against Abortion is perhaps the most ridicules argument I have ever heard.

I am against Abortion for any but the most extreme reasons because Ending a potential life just because you don't want a kid is just wrong. You do not have to believe in god to see that. You just have to have some compassion in your heart. Which sangha clearly does not. 

Clearly he/she does not have any children. My opinion about Abortion changed dramatically the day I saw my first child inside my wife at 12 weeks. It was a life changing moment. There was no doubt in my mind at all that was person in there. Before that Day I was much more liberal on the idea of Abortion.

Now I see it as a necessary evil so to speak. We must keep it available for the extreme cases that justify it(rape, Incest, the life of the mother) but the fact that it is used mostly as birth control is a National embarrassment IMO.

over 2 million potential lives ended each year, and the vast majority for selfish reasons. 

It is just wrong.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Oh REALLY?

How about Scott Peterson and his conviction of double murder; one murder being his unborn child?

Fucking loser.


----------



## ConHog (Jun 30, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> sangha Might very well be the most disgusting person I have ever come across. Not to mention the least intelligent. His arguments are like a cirlce jerk, Where he keeps making the most ignorant and appalling comments, and then says. "see I am winning"
> 
> The Idea that only a religious person has a justification to be against Abortion is perhaps the most ridicules argument I have ever heard.
> 
> ...




You a poopy  head confab, can't come up with a non religious objection. abortion good. wash rinse , repeat

Did I do that right Sangha?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



So? I posted a link to an atheist who opposes abortion, and you claimed he is really a religious nut because he opposes abortion. You are the one with a problem defending your position, not me.

Just because I can.

An abortion can result in medical complications later in life; the risk  of ectopic pregnancies doubles, and the chance of a miscarriage and pelvic inflammatory disease also increases.

Is that another religious argument against abortion?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...


----------



## ConHog (Jun 30, 2010)

Please I encourage EVERYONE to vote for Sangha here
http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...-annoying-members-of-usmb-21.html#post2464504


----------



## Meister (Jun 30, 2010)

manu1959 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > manu1959 said:
> ...



It's what sangha does when he knows he just got pwn'd


----------



## Meister (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



There is no better justification than their own belief....damn your a tool


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 30, 2010)

Yes he is.
Luckily a small and insignificant tool. Of the non-sharp variety.


----------



## Meister (Jun 30, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Yes he is.
> Luckily a small and insignificant tool. Of the *non-sharp variety*.



Are you talking about sangha being sharp as a marble?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 30, 2010)

More like a rubber mallet.


----------



## steeliniraq (Jun 30, 2010)

blu said:


> Two brothers charged with molesting 10-year-old girl | ajc.com
> 
> A 10 year old was raped by two family members (incest) and impregnated, she got an abortion. Was she wrong? Should a ten year old have to carry a baby to term?



What about the majority of those who get abortions?  You know the young adult who made a choice and is now killing a baby because they dont want to take responsibility or how about the couple of woman I know who are upper class and have had 2 and 3 abortions.  Were they wrong?  As for the 10 year old year its a horrible situation but please don't try to pull out the extreme situation and say this is why abortion is such a great thing.  A great thing would be people taking some damn responsibility for their actions then we wouldn't have problems and issues like this.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jun 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



I think you should read your Scott Peterson link again.



> On November 12 the reconstituted jury convicted Peterson of first-degree murder with special circumstances for killing Laci and second-degree murder for killing the unborn baby she carried.



Sure looks like two separate convictions to me.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 30, 2010)

Rat in the Hat said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Don't confuse the issue with facts, he will just ignore them.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 1, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



That was a child in someone else's body. Not the same.


----------



## Yukon. (Jul 1, 2010)

sangha said:


> Yukon. said:
> 
> 
> > Nonelitist said:
> ...



Sangha,

I stand corrected my son. My sincere apologies for my error. You are truly a wise man. I will continue to pray for your soul daily at Mass.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 1, 2010)

Rat in the Hat said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



It is. 
And there are others.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 1, 2010)

A 34-year-old California man, Aaron Ashley was convicted of two counts of murder in the killings of his pregnant girlfriend and her unborn child. Ashley, who could be the first to be prosecuted since the conviction of Scott Peterson for the deaths of Laci and Conner, wanted his partner to have an abortion.
California Man Convicted of Double Murder, Killing Pregnant Girlfriend Unborn Child

Rudolfo Negrete was sentenced in a Ventura County courtroom Tuesday morning for the murder of Alex Jordan, 24; his wife, Cynthia Jordan, 22; their unborn child; and 21-year-old Daniel Campos of Oxnard.
Man Convicted Of Killing 3, Unborn Child Gets Life In Prison - South County News Story - KERO Bakersfield

Emmanuel Rogers was found guilty in the shooting death of Virginia Ramirez and convicted on separate capital murder charges for killing her and her 9 week-old unborn baby.
Texas Man Convicted Under Unborn Victims Law for Killing Pregnant Woman

A South Sioux City, Nebraska man who served jail time for the 2008 killing of his girlfriend's unborn child has pleaded not guilty in an assault outside a Sioux City bar.
Man Convicted Of Killing Unborn Baby In Trouble Again

There are pages of this stuff.


----------



## ConHog (Jul 1, 2010)

Yukon. said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon. said:
> ...



 right there is the kiss of death for Sangha, when Yukon the pedophile calls him a wise man.


----------



## Nonelitist (Jul 1, 2010)

chirp, chirp, chirp

sangha has slithered off to the underside of some rock due to the embarassment of getting hammered


----------



## Meister (Jul 1, 2010)

ConHog said:


> Yukon. said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



  Yukon and sangha just got a room for some make up sex.  Yukon is a pedophile, and sangha is probably 15.


----------



## Meister (Jul 1, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Your joking right?  I mean your not going with that are you?


----------



## ConHog (Jul 1, 2010)

Meister said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon. said:
> ...



Question, which is the larger number

Sangha's age
Sangha's IQ
Number of children molested by Yukon
Yukon's IQ


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 1, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> chirp, chirp, chirp
> 
> sangha has slithered off to the underside of some rock due to the embarassment of getting hammered



I miss him, almost, not at all.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Jul 1, 2010)

I'm opposed to abortion.   Justification?  It ends a human life.   No religion, just fact.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 1, 2010)

making a 10 year old, go through a pregnancy and labor could be very damaging psychologically as well as physically.

No, God would NOT expect the child to go through such, imho.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 1, 2010)

Meister said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...


That is the law, something you are obviously ignorant of.


----------



## Meister (Jul 1, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Your missing my point.....if someone else kills the "child" it's murder, if you do it yourself, it's not murder.  Can you see the difference in the taking of a life....I can't. Dead is dead


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 1, 2010)

Care4all said:


> making a 10 year old, go through a pregnancy and labor could be very damaging psychologically as well as physically.
> 
> No, God would NOT expect the child to go through such, imho.




Of course, nobody has proposed that a 10 year old go through a pregnancy.

But when did you start speaking for God, C4A?


----------



## ConHog (Jul 1, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > making a 10 year old, go through a pregnancy and labor could be very damaging psychologically as well as physically.
> ...



Easy, she only gave her opinion. It's one I share.


----------



## Zona (Jul 1, 2010)

blu said:


> Two brothers charged with molesting 10-year-old girl | ajc.com
> 
> A 10 year old was raped by two family members (incest) and impregnated, she got an abortion. Was she wrong? Should a ten year old have to carry a baby to term?



According to that republican nut in Nevada, Angle...the baby should be born.  Wow.

Pro lifers are all avbout the fetus, not the baby.  I get a kick out of pro lifers who believe in the miracle of birth and the respect for human life, but are for capital punishment.


----------



## Zona (Jul 1, 2010)

Care4all said:


> making a 10 year old, go through a pregnancy and labor could be very damaging psychologically as well as physically.
> 
> No, God would NOT expect the child to go through such, imho.



Angle disagree's.  I guess you will never be allowed in Vegas again..?


----------



## Zona (Jul 1, 2010)

ConHog said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > ConHog said:
> ...



You forgot the obvious name.....yours ...throw yourself in there dude.  

I swear, you really have made a name for yourself and thats all you wanted to do.  YOu sir are a troll.  A person who says the oposite to get a fight.  Its simple really.


----------



## Father Time (Jul 2, 2010)

LuckyDan said:


> The abortion solved...what?



You don't see any problems caused by a 10-year old having a child?


----------



## Father Time (Jul 2, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> Only opinion here that matters is that of the Creator of life... God.
> 
> Abortion is murder... no exceptions.



Except murder is a legal term that is not defined in the Bible so God's opinion means fuck all.


----------



## Gunny (Jul 2, 2010)

blu said:


> Two brothers charged with molesting 10-year-old girl | ajc.com
> 
> A 10 year old was raped by two family members (incest) and impregnated, she got an abortion. Was she wrong? Should a ten year old have to carry a baby to term?



Oh goody .... yet another abortion thread.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 2, 2010)

Meister said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Opinion, yours or mine, is not the law.
We are a nation of laws. If you want mob rule there are plenty of countries you can choose from.
We do not do it that way here.


----------



## Yukon. (Jul 2, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> But when did you start speaking for God, C4A?



Only His Holiness the Pope is empowered to speak onbehalf of God fr He is a direct decendent of St Peter.


----------



## Meister (Jul 2, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Mob rule?   
I knew you wouldn't see it, can't do your own thinking huh?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 2, 2010)

What I keep thinking is that abortion has risks, too. Which in a child that age may even be greater than carrying the baby and delivering it. How far along was she when it was discovered?

Abortion also is traumatic, probably even more traumatic to a 10 year old than delivering a baby. A baby is at least a positive event, particularly to a child. But abortion is just invasive, humiliating and painful with no up side. You're killing an unwanted child, I mean that's the low-low.

If this were a child I had control of, I'd want to know all the risks of both..pregnancy and abortion. A 10 year old is very small and very small means it's very easy to screw up a procedure, and it's very easy to bleed out. I would weigh it carefully, and consider the personality of the kid and what she's been through already.

If she's lived a life where males have been sticking things into her and hurting her, which she probably has, I would seriously consider not authorizing an abortion. Unless, of course, an abortion is remarkably less dangerous than carrying the child.

It would be all about what is right for that little girl. If abortion is the right decision, that would be the result. But depending on how far along she is, what her issues are, I just don't think it's necessarily the ONLY decision that is plausible.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 2, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > making a 10 year old, go through a pregnancy and labor could be very damaging psychologically as well as physically.
> ...



Really...no one has proposed that this 10 year old go through pregnancy and delivery?  

and on the god reference dear, it said IN MY HUMBLE OPINION.....


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 2, 2010)

Ah, you're a humble spokesperson for God.
Good for you.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 2, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Ah, you're a humble spokesperson for God.
> Good for you.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 2, 2010)

Yukon. said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > But when did you start speaking for God, C4A?
> ...



No he isn't.


----------



## blu (Jul 2, 2010)

Gunny said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > Two brothers charged with molesting 10-year-old girl | ajc.com
> ...



do you ever have a point or do you just come into threads that hurt your world view, make a stupid comment, and then move it to a sub forum and hope it dies?


----------



## blu (Jul 2, 2010)

Yukon. said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > But when did you start speaking for God, C4A?
> ...



nice troll


----------



## Immanuel (Jul 2, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > Two brothers charged with molesting 10-year-old girl | ajc.com
> ...





hellbitch said:


> death for 10 yr olds?  is that really how disposable we find children?



I am trying to figure out if he means both of the brothers or both the 10 year old and the abortionist.  I' hoping he means the brothers and I'm also hoping he was joking.

Life in prison seems sufficient for the brothers.

Immie


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 2, 2010)

How old are the brothers? What about the parents?

The same story pops up every time pro-abortionists are promoting baby killing. It's always "Lookie here, see this happened and so abortion should be legal for EVERYBODY". 

But it's usually a mix of lies and urban legend. We all know bad stuff happens, but as much as the left would like everyone to believe it's rampant and we're all sex starved monsters from cradle to grave, that just isn't true.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 2, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> How old are the brothers? What about the parents?
> 
> The same story pops up every time pro-abortionists are promoting baby killing. It's always "Lookie here, see this happened and so abortion should be legal for EVERYBODY".
> 
> But it's usually a mix of lies and urban legend. We all know bad stuff happens, but as much as the left would like everyone to believe it's rampant and we're all sex starved monsters from cradle to grave, that just isn't true.



I know of no one pro abortion.
I am anti abortion but fear the power of government more.
The Founders were the same way. Note abortion was legal in their time. Anti abortion forces came along at about the same time as anti slavery forces. The founders wanted no part of either. Slavery and abortion are both wrong but in different ways. Freeing slaves took away the rights of the oppressors, not the other way around and gave no additional powers to government.
No one I know is pro abortion. That is an absurd claim.


----------



## Father Time (Jul 2, 2010)

Meister said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Since when did our laws have to be consistent or sensical?

And why should we look to our laws for morality?


----------



## Father Time (Jul 2, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> How old are the brothers? What about the parents?
> 
> The same story pops up every time pro-abortionists are promoting baby killing. It's always "Lookie here, see this happened and so abortion should be legal for EVERYBODY".
> 
> But it's usually a mix of lies and urban legend. We all know bad stuff happens, but as much as the left would like everyone to believe it's rampant and we're all sex starved monsters from cradle to grave, that just isn't true.



Well maybe if you would stop deliberately confusing fetus with child or baby.

Anyway the point is that if you truly believe a fetus is a life with rights then it should still apply even if it's the bastard offspring of incest and rape.


----------



## Zona (Jul 2, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> What I keep thinking is that abortion has risks, too. Which in a child that age *may even be greater than carrying the baby and delivering it*. How far along was she when it was discovered?
> 
> Abortion also is traumatic, probably even *more traumatic to a 10 year old than delivering a baby.* A baby is at least a positive event, particularly to a child. But abortion is just invasive, humiliating and painful with no up side. You're killing an unwanted child, I mean that's the low-low.
> 
> ...



Do you have any scientific backing on these facts your spewing?  Take into account the 10 year old's mental state after she carries the child, then bears a child, while being a 10 year old!  YOu can prove of course it would be bettter for her to do that than having the abortion because your scientific proof will prove her having the abortion would be worse.  


Her coming to full term AS A *10 year old *is less problematic than an abortion.  AGain, a link please.  By the way, what happens to that infant.  The one born to a freaking 10 year old.  What happens to the baby?  

Pro lifers are all about the fetus, not the children.  Gotta love it.


----------



## Yukon. (Jul 2, 2010)

The term Pro-Abortion was invented by religious fanatics who are determined to take away an individual female's right to control her body. We are not, repeat NOT, pro-abortion we are PRO-CHOICE and there is quite a difference.


----------



## blu (Jul 2, 2010)

Yukon. said:


> The term Pro-Abortion was invented by religious fanatics who are determined to take away an individual female's right to control her body. We are not, repeat NOT, pro-abortion we are PRO-CHOICE and there is quite a difference.



quit arguing with ultra religious. their belief shows a lacking of any understanding and deep thought


----------



## Zoom-boing (Jul 2, 2010)

Yukon. said:


> The term Pro-Abortion was invented by religious fanatics who are determined to take away an individual female's right to control her body. We are not, repeat NOT, pro-abortion we are PRO-CHOICE and there is quite a difference.



Pro-choice wants to be able to chose to end a human life.  We get it.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 2, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > How old are the brothers? What about the parents?
> ...



You obviously have never met Ravi.

It's not an absurd claim. Pro abortionists claim they aren't pro-abortion, but only because they know how flimsy their stance is, and how universally loathed those who advocate killing children are.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 2, 2010)

i didn't even really know what pregnancy meant, at 10 years old and certainly knew nothing about the real how, in how a baby is 'made'.....i guess i lived in the 'good ole days'?

gosh, this whole thing is very disturbing.

i would not want any 10 year old CHILD....not even an adolescent, go through a 9 month pregnancy and deliver a child....I would not want my child to completely lose whatever is left of her childhood....  I would not want her to miss out on school.....she certainly would be a complete outcast, no other parent of a 10 year old would want her allowed back in to 5th grade PREGNANT.....the mental scars one could put upon her, on top of the rape and sexual abuse she probably had already been through....is uncomprehendable....sheesh, what a sad story! 

how old are the boys, was it said?


----------



## SueBee (Oct 13, 2010)

A fetus conceived by rape is not inferior or less worthy than a fetus conceived via a one-night stand or a fetus conceived by two people deeply in love.

It's hypocritical and wishy-washy to put special circumstances on who can or who can't have an abortion.

You either support a woman's right to choose abortion or you don't.  
You either believe abortion is murder or you don't.

It really is that cut and dry if we breakdown all the complexities surrounding this issue.

However, the complexities are so emotionally-charged that few people aren't torn at some point in this controversy.  Scientific theories suggest life doesn't begin or end with conception/birth/death but is a continuem. Some feel a first trimester abortion is fine, but that aborting a 4-month-old fetus is mutilating, sick, and a brutal massacre.

If the issue is about the fetus' right to be born, that's one argument/issue.
If the issue is about the woman's right to choose, well, that's a different argument/issue.

100% of people I've personally known who've had abortions, it was for birth control. Not to save her own life or from a rape/incest conception. And they were done in safe, clean and professional medical clinics. Legal too.


----------



## SueBee (Oct 13, 2010)

I had an abortion once.  I was only six weeks along and the clinic people sat me down and interviewed/counseled me first--one week before the procedure.  They didn't try to talk me into any decision.  Besides the necessary medical questions for obvious reasons, they also asked a few personal questions--although why, I don't know, since whatever I decided to do...abortion, adoption, keep the baby...they didn't give a rip.  I suppose if I decided during the interview not to go thru with the abortion, they would have directed me elsewhere.  Believe me, they weren't starved for business and weren't going to go bankrupt if I changed my mind and decided against the abortion.


----------



## SueBee (Oct 13, 2010)

A 10 year old delivering a baby is very dangerous and if it doesn't kill her, most likely will physically damage her permanently.


----------



## Douger (Oct 13, 2010)

I got exactly what I expected when I b klikinn on da link.
It could have been stopped had someone tossed a basketball.


----------



## SueBee (Oct 13, 2010)

I don't know anyone who actively does what she can to get pregnant so she can go have an abortion because she thinks it's a POSITIVE ("pro-abortion") thing to do in life.  She's not saying "let's all make sure we have lots of abortions because we are PRO-ABORTION".

Pro-CHOICE means pro-life.  Quality life and responsible parenting.  That's pro-life.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 13, 2010)

Love the newbie coming along and dragging out an old thread.

Is it too early to call 'idiot'?


----------



## topspin (Oct 13, 2010)

It's certainly not too early to call you a ****.


----------



## SueBee (Oct 16, 2010)

What a profound reply. Who cares how long someone's been posting here. Idiotic "nothing" reply.


----------



## Father Time (Oct 16, 2010)

SueBee said:


> What a profound reply. Who cares how long someone's been posting here. Idiotic "nothing" reply.



It doesn't matter how long you've been posting, digging out a topic that hasn't been posted on in over 3 months is generally frowned upon in most of the internet.


----------



## SueBee (Oct 17, 2010)

topspin said:


> It's certainly not too early to call you a ****.



Calling me a **** adds NOTHING to the discussion and is the most idiotic statement I've read on this board yet.

Are you trying to make yourself feel better? Calling me a **** means nothing to me because I know who I am and what kind of person I am. You, on the other hand, do not. 

Post something resembling intelligence next time, you bitter fool.


----------



## SueBee (Oct 17, 2010)

Father Time said:


> SueBee said:
> 
> 
> > What a profound reply. Who cares how long someone's been posting here. Idiotic "nothing" reply.
> ...



I will keep that in mind for my future posts and avoid grave digging from this point on. I do appreciate you telling me that.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 17, 2010)

SueBee said:


> topspin said:
> 
> 
> > It's certainly not too early to call you a ****.
> ...



Actually, I think he intended that comment for CG, not you, but regardless, it was inappropriate.

See had he used the quote function it would have come out like this:



topspin said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Love the newbie coming along and dragging out an old thread.
> ...



And the "you" would have been clearly seen to be in reference to CG.

Immie


----------

