>> In article <C014v8.IGp@ra.nrl.navy.mil> psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow)
>writes:
>
>> I'll type slow so you can keep up Paul...
>> It is a fetus, not a child.
>> Repeat that until you understand the difference.
>
>Gee, sounds just like mind-control. Do you also run a Chinese-style reeducation camp for wayward pro-lifers?
>
No, but it's certainly not a bad idea. *Somebody* certainly needs to
deprogram twits like you.
>I get it - its "fetus" just because YOU say it is - common usage be damned.
>
Oh, no, certainly not just me. Here's an excercise you'll no doubt
refuse to try. Go to the nearest library that includes a medical
section (you remember the library, don't you monkey boy? I'm sure they
showed it to you when you were a little tyke). Now get a text and read
it. See the word "fetus" used to describe a certain time in the
development of the embryo/zygote/fetus?
Good. Now check as many as you can before the library closes (we know
you read slow, so take as many days as you need).
I certainly didn't write all those texts Monkey boy.
>
>> >> ...not given the legal right to use their parents' bodies without
>> >> permission.
>
>> >Here SJM raises the bogus concept that the government never dictates how
>> >we use our bodies. In fact, it does as a matter of course.
>
>> Here Paul raises the bogus concept that because the government
>> dictates some things, it should dictate all things. Guess we know why
>> you're from a .mil site eh Paulie?
>
>Please point out exactly where I said, or even implied the word, "all".
>
See "as a matter of course" up there monkey boy? There's the
implication. Feel free to deny or ignore it.
>I also like the very practical way that you catagorize people. Makes life easy. Wait, I have to turn down the marching music I always play in the background... there, that's better.
>
Thank you. I never cared much for that sort of music.
>> Here Paulie demonstrates that he is incapable of differentiating between a
>> pro-lifer and a fetus fanatic. Here's a clue Paulie. Pro-Life != forced
>> birth.
>
>I see, if one is against abortion he may have in mind just requiring the mother to keep her legs tightly crossed whenever the urge to push arises. I'm just not right brained I guess. Thanks for the clue.
>
Not at all monkey boy. Some, even here in t.a are capable of being
against abortion without feeling it necessary to try and force their
views on the rest of the world. It's not all pro-lifers who do this
Monkey boy, just you control freaks.
>> > I guess the millions of men let off the hook through the magic
>> >of the abortionist's wand is just incidental gravy. Of course, men are
>> >just disinterested bystanders who have no stake whatsoever in keeping
>> >abortion legal. And of course the concept of mothers killing their
>> >offspring is a good light to hold women to.
>> >
>> Speaking of unsupported rhetoric....
>>
>
>Go ahead, speak. Which part is unsupportable?
Why, that should be obvious even to someone of your limited ability
monkey boy. Everything you've ever claimed is unsupportable. The
single time you provided citations, they were quickly shown to be
either unreliable, inaccurate, or exactly contrary to the position you
claimed they would support. And this debunking of your "sources" was
performed by several people, not just one. I think it's safe to say
your losing credibility quickly monkey boy.
--
Mark Cochran merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
