"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"RogerN" wrote in message
m...
"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On May 29, 7:56 pm, Winston wrote:
RogerN wrote:
wrote in message
...
rangerssuck wrote:
On May 29, 3:30 pm, wrote:
(...)
A woman went to a planned parenthood abortion mill to inquire about
an
abortion, she hadn't made up her mind but wanted to discuss it. She
was
nervous and all so they gave her some medicine to help her relax.
After
thinking it over, she decided she didn't want the abortion. They
told
her
that the medicine they gave her could harm the baby and talked her
into
the
abortion. Afterward she found out the medicine they gave her wasn't
harmful
to the baby, they lied to her to talk her into the abortion.
Without credible cites, that is nothing more than a fairy tale.
No fairy tale, it's libel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel
--Winston
It's truth:
http://911babies.com/news.php?action...mments=1&id=86
Help me understand your point Roger, please?
Where in your cite does it indicate that Planned Parenthood
coerced someone into an abortion by lying to them?
It just doesn't.
The only internet cite I can see for your
story *is* your story, written by you.
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2...arenthood-resp...
I agree that there is some lying going on. 
--Winston-
\
\When I asked for a cite, I got, "I heard it on the radio" followed by
\a bunch of cut & paste from an anti-abortion web site. I clicked on
\one of the links and got a 404 error. That's about all the time I'm
\willing to put in to chasing Rogers "facts."
Yes, the woman telling of her experience with Planned Parenthood was on
the radio, just because she said it on the radio doesn't make it less
true or false than it being on a website. So, I provided you with many
other similar incidents that other women experienced with Planned
Parenthood.
\Now, you need to remember that the discussion was about federal
\funding for women's health services which Roger claimed would become
\redundant under publicly funded health insurance. You also need to
\remember that I said that I had no quarrel with that, and that Roger
\then responded by going off into his all-too-familiar tirade about
\baby killing.
Many bring up the "good" services that Planned Parenthood provides, if
you search you can see that many abortions Planned Parenthood provided
were because the contraceptives they provided failed, job security I
guess. Use government money to hand out unreliable contraceptives and
make billions aborting those babies!
It's those ventilated condoms. Planned Parenthood hires a guy who shoots
the condom packs with .22 birdshot loads before they hand them out. I read
it on a Christian blog.
\Menwhile, Gunner fantasizes about being a tennis umpire...
\
\Roger: Are you also against contraception? Do you believe that
\intercourse is only for procreation?
\
Contraception is OK by me, but why does the government give PP money to
had out contraceptives and PP makes a profit if the contraceptives fail?
So, if PP gives out bad contraceptives, or bad advice, they are rewarded
by making $$$ for an abortion, no wonder they are the nations number one
abortion provider. And why is Obama so obsessed with funding PP? Maybe
they aborted some babies for him so he wouldn't get caught or have to pay
Child Support?
RogerN
Roger, why don't you just face the truth. Planned Parenthood is an
organization of people who feel that women have been medically
undertreated and mistreated for centuries, particularly concerning
reproductive issues. Some of them, like a good friend of mine, feel that
Christians had it right about abortion -- before roughly 1840, when some
of the Christians suddenly got the superstitious idea that human zygotes
were imbued with a soul at the time of conception.
That may have been centuries ago, but it's not valid today. Women get way
way way better treatment than men these days, the poeple that saw women
treated worse are now fossils. I know you think 1840 Christians had it
right, but the modern Christians, the are elightened by science and reading
their Bible, now believe differently. Sorry you haven't caught up with
science or the Bible. To be honest, all that thought as you described were
not Christians, the Bible says God knew us BEFORE we were in our mothers
womb, someone that believes otherwise and claims to be a Christian is simply
a liar.
Before that time, the standard Christian idea was that there was a
"delayed ensoulment," which occurred at some time before the middle of a
term of pregnancy, and that terminating a fetus was at least marginally
acceptable until that time. This was the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas, which
dominated the thinking about this and some other subjects on the part of
theistic scholars from the late 13th century until American evangelicals
got a different idea in their heads, with different sects rolling over
between 1820 and roughly 1910. The Catholic Church did the same in 1869.
English common law held roughly the same position -- abortion before
"quickening" was Ok, or at least not a crime -- and that was the law that
ruled US jurisprudence during the early days of our republic.
Nice bull****, but not at all Biblical, those who thought such foolishness
pulled their theology out of their ass.
Those PP people see themselves as the last lifeline for women who are
victims of subjugation by people like you, who want to tell them what they
can do with their bodies because of your superstitious views. They are
indeed firm supporters of the right to abortion and it's become the
symbol, for you and your ilk, of what they're about. But abortion is not
what they're about. It's women's health and rights that they're about.
That's great, then why don't they accept government funds for services that
the government covers and provide abortions for free? Because they are full
of **** and you bought into their bull****, that's why.
We've listened to your rants about abortion and the way your former wife
behaved for years. I have no way to judge your situation; we've only heard
your side of the story, and we don't know a thing about the other side. Be
that as it may, I'm not judging you or what you went through. I'll take
you at your word for that.
Just take my rants with the law, you'll find out that women are not required
to spend $0.01 of child support on the children. You'll also find out that
if a woman gets pregnant by another man, another man can be required to
support the child just because the bitch lied. Jesus said "with God nothing
is impossible" I would have to say the most difficult thing would be to make
torment in hell bad enough for the women and libtards that made laws the way
they are now. Today our justice system rules in favor of lying, cheating,
whores and rules against men that may be innocent.
But there's something missing. The only time you talk about kids is when
you tell us how much it costs you to support yours, and about the "babies"
(gestating fetuses) that are being killed. Never a word of affection, or
anything that sounds even vaguely like human concern for any of them as
human beings. It's always about you, and your wife, and the "baby
killers." It's like they aren't even humans, let alone objects of human
interest or concern.
I love my kids enough that it disgusts me that the money that is supposed to
be for them can be used for the woman to buy herself a sport car (she earned
$20K per year and received $10k (cash, after tax) per year child support)
but the kids have to work while in school because their mother spent their
money on herself.
Obviously, you're deeply embittered about what happened to you, and you
may well be justified. But your anger toward abortion providers sounds
unconnected with any feeling for the objects -- the children, or potential
children. The closest you come is clinical descriptions of abortions. You
could as well be describing taxidermy.
Yes, I'm very bitter, paying child support when the children lived with me,
being taken to court by Public Aid many times when I was ahead on support,
having arrearage taken from my pay when I was ahead on support, having the
EX ask me for more money right after she got a $340 per month increase, and
all supported by libtarded laws.
FWIW, it sounds like you want to make women pay for what's happened to
you, and this is your way of doing it. The whole thing sounds not like a
genuine interest in the lives of children, but rather an imposition of
order that you think will restore your own sense of fairness.
No, actually I want to stop making men pay for what deadbeat dads did. The
ones paying child support are being punished for the ones that didn't, and
that's pure and simple wrong.
And it's about you, not about those potential human lives. That's the
feeling I get from most religious anti-abortionists. Your talk about it is
so abstract and so focused on your own sense of propriety, which the antis
call their morality, that if one walked into the middle of their
discussions he would wonder for a few minutes what you all were talking
about.
My biggest complaints about abortion is that it's totally one sided and they
want taxpayers provide funding for the nations number one abortion provider.
As far as I'm concerned, you keep your hands off. It's not your business.
You don't have any connection to those women or their pregnancies. Those
are their business, and their doctors', should the women choose. You're
entitled to your religion but not to impose it on others.
That's great, as long as they keep their hands off taxpayer dollars. If
they choose to be whores, don't think they deserve special treatment when it
comes to public funding for their choosen lifestyle. Taxpayers are not
responsible for women that let any stiff dick in their hole.
Just so we know where we stand on this.
--
Ed Huntress
Yes, I think God's laughing that you, who were smarter than Christians at
age 13, now hold to the position of 1840 Christians and today Christians
believe in Science and the Bible! ROFLMAO!!!!
By the way, even to the disagreement of some conservatives and most
liberals, on the issue of abortion and homosexuality, science is in
agreement with the Bible.
Hmmm
RogerN