Tiller may have done many illegal post-viabilty abortions

[Chris]

"pnyikos" <> wrote in message ...
Not a fucking thing.

Translation: "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts."

Just another man trying to tell women what to do!!
Smile.

How do you explain the fact that women make up a substantial
majority
of the leaders of the pro-life movement in the USA? The two biggest
organizations are headed by women: NRLC (Wanda Franz) and ALL (Judie
Brown). The NRLC affiliate in Kansas is headed by a woman, and the
one in South Carolina has been run by women ever since I've known
about it -- the last twenty years.

Randall Terry, Donald Spitz, Troy Newman, Patrick Mahoney, Pat
Robertson, Allan Keyes? All female? The Priests for Life (or at least,
Priests for More Altar Boys)? All female? Paul Hill, John Salvi, Eric
Rudolph, Scott Roeder, Michael Griffin, James Kopp? All female? Those
are the ones at the forefront, the most visible faces of the anti-
abortion crusade. Think about it. I have never once seen the face of
Wanda Franz, or Wendy Wright. I can't recall ever seeing them quoted,
although I probably have at some point. I very rarely see them linked
to. Some of the background leaders may be female, but the face and
name of the movement is all male.
The human mind is a fragile thing. Conditioning is strong and
difficult to break without professional help. Battered women can and
do defend their abusers, because they are conditioned into thinking
the abuser is right. Women are raised on Barbie dolls and Barbie-like
celebrities, develop eating disorders, and battle their weight for a
lifetime. There's a 14 year old girl in Texas custody still convinced
that her "marriage" to Warren Jeffs was blessed by God, and an entire
compound of similar Stepford wives who believe the same way waiting
for her to come home. Andrea Yates is in an institution and her
children are dead because her husband and pastor "knew" she needed
more kids, even after the doctor said No.
**************
Untrue. She's in an institution and her children are dead because she
KILLED
them!
**************

Peter? As I was saying...
Chris? Thanks for helping prove my point.
***************
What point did I help you prove, and how did I do so?

I'm curious. Did you read the paragraph you responded to in its
entirety and can you tell me what it was about?
Once you are able to do that, it will be much easier to explain to you
the point I was making that you were so helpful with.
***************
Knock yourself out....

I'll give it a shot, but if you didn't get the point of the post the
first time it may not do any good...

The post, and the paragraph you jumped into, were about the
conditioning of women by society to be 1) submissive to men and 2)
baby machines, and the effect this conditioning has on women
themselves.

*************

Not even CLOSE. Today's society is, plain and simple, a matriarch;
controlled by feminazis. To suggest anything other would be untrue. The
"equal rights" movement has seen to it that women have MORE rights than men;
and Obama is expanding the gap.

***********

I used Andrea Yates as an example. Since you are apparently not
familiar with the case details, I will summarize for you: Andrea Yates
had a history of postpartum depression and psychosis and the couple
was warned to stop having children two years before the deaths and a
year before the last child was born. Husband wanted more kids, and
pressured her to go off her antipsychotic medication and have another.
They had another child, she had another psychotic episode, and that's
when the children were killed. That's why she's in a hospital and not
prison.
Got all that?

************

I got it alright. Perpetrator commits crime, court finds perpetrator not
guilty by reason of insanity, court sends perpetrator to mental institution.
What's WORSE is they often find some other poor sap to take the heat (which
in this case would be her husband). This woman clearly was pro-choice since
she was excercising her choice. Problem is, for some strange reason she is
not held accountable for her SOLE choice. Oh, that's right, I forgot; women
are submissive baby machines who are INCAPABLE of being responsible for
their choices. Gee, how dumb of me!

**********

Your comment went right straight through all that, to "She KILLED
them!". Had she just "KILLED them!", she'd be in prison.

************

Yet she is NOT.

************

Your comment
assigned responsibility strictly to her, which was by no means the
case,

***********

Who was the killer?

***********

and this reinforced what I was saying about the view society
still has of women and women's roles. Even the Texas courts, which are
not known for their good common sense, found her to be not
responsible.

***********

At least they were consistent.

**********

You decided she was,

********

Correction: Her CHOICE decided she was!

*********

and tried to shift the
responsibility off her husband, without even apparently knowing what
had actually happened. Because she was a mom who killed her kids, and
like a lot of other people, that's all you bothered to see.

*************

Untrue.

**************

That's exactly the conditioning I was talking about. Women are still
supposed to be wives and mommies, and be good at it. When they are
either not wives and mommies or not good at it, they are viewed as
failures and reviled for it. Men who are not husbands or daddies, or
not good at it, are not viewed or treated the same way.

************

Correct; they're generally viewed as a danger to children; and treated
accordingly.

***********

Once again, thanks for the help.

**********

WHAT help?

[--sexkitten--]

Post by Chris

"pnyikos" <> wrote in message ...
Not a fucking thing.

Translation: "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts."

Just another man trying to tell women what to do!!
Smile.

How do you explain the fact that women make up a substantial
majority
of the leaders of the pro-life movement in the USA? The two biggest
organizations are headed by women: NRLC (Wanda Franz) and ALL (Judie
Brown). The NRLC affiliate in Kansas is headed by a woman, and the
one in South Carolina has been run by women ever since I've known
about it -- the last twenty years.

Randall Terry, Donald Spitz, Troy Newman, Patrick Mahoney, Pat
Robertson, Allan Keyes? All female? The Priests for Life (or at least,
Priests for More Altar Boys)? All female? Paul Hill, John Salvi, Eric
Rudolph, Scott Roeder, Michael Griffin, James Kopp? All female? Those
are the ones at the forefront, the most visible faces of the anti-
abortion crusade. Think about it. I have never once seen the face of
Wanda Franz, or Wendy Wright. I can't recall ever seeing them quoted,
although I probably have at some point. I very rarely see them linked
to. Some of the background leaders may be female, but the face and
name of the movement is all male.
The human mind is a fragile thing. Conditioning is strong and
difficult to break without professional help. Battered women can and
do defend their abusers, because they are conditioned into thinking
the abuser is right. Women are raised on Barbie dolls and Barbie-like
celebrities, develop eating disorders, and battle their weight for a
lifetime. There's a 14 year old girl in Texas custody still convinced
that her "marriage" to Warren Jeffs was blessed by God, and an entire
compound of similar Stepford wives who believe the same way waiting
for her to come home. Andrea Yates is in an institution and her
children are dead because her husband and pastor "knew" she needed
more kids, even after the doctor said No.
**************
Untrue. She's in an institution and her children are dead because she
KILLED
them!
**************

Peter? As I was saying...
Chris? Thanks for helping prove my point.
***************
What point did I help you prove, and how did I do so?

I'm curious. Did you read the paragraph you responded to in its
entirety and can you tell me what it was about?
Once you are able to do that, it will be much easier to explain to you
the point I was making that you were so helpful with.
***************
Knock yourself out....

I'll give it a shot, but if you didn't get the point of the post the
first time it may not do any good...
The post, and the paragraph you jumped into, were about the
conditioning of women by society to be 1) submissive to men and 2)
baby machines, and the effect this conditioning has on women
themselves.
                    *************
Not even CLOSE. Today's society is, plain and simple, a matriarch;
controlled by feminazis. To suggest anything other would be untrue. The
"equal rights" movement has seen to it that women have MORE rights than men;
and Obama is expanding the gap.

BWAHAHAHA!!!
Oh now THAT was fun to read. Totally untrue, but fun to read.
The only area in which the rights of women are greater than the rights
of men- and here again, this helps make my point- is that of child
custody and support. Custody issues still lean heavily in favor of
mothers over fathers, no matter what may actually be in the best
interest of the child, and support is still automatic whether the man
wanted the child, knew about the child or even had a relationship with
the mother.

Out in the rest of the world: there is still a pay inequity in the
workplace, rape is still often viewed as the fault of the victim,
domestic violence penalties are light and restraining orders difficult
to enforce, and appearance is still favored over intelligence or
skill.

Post by Chris
                 ***********
I used Andrea Yates as an example. Since you are apparently not
familiar with the case details, I will summarize for you: Andrea Yates
had a history of postpartum depression and psychosis and the couple
was warned to stop having children two years before the deaths and a
year before the last child was born. Husband wanted more kids, and
pressured her to go off her antipsychotic medication and have another.
They had another child, she had another psychotic episode, and that's
when the children were killed. That's why she's in a hospital and not
prison.
Got all that?
                      ************
I got it alright. Perpetrator commits crime, court finds perpetrator not
guilty by reason of insanity, court sends perpetrator to mental institution.
What's WORSE is they often find some other poor sap to take the heat (which
in this case would be her husband). This woman clearly was pro-choice since
she was excercising her choice. Problem is, for some strange reason she is
not held accountable for her SOLE choice. Oh, that's right, I forgot; women
are submissive baby machines who are INCAPABLE of being responsible for
their choices. Gee, how dumb of me!

Once again, you make my point for me- you didn't know the details of
the case and when it was explained to you, you dismissed it in favor
of blaming the woman.

Post by Chris
                     **********
Your comment went right straight through all that, to "She KILLED
them!". Had she just "KILLED them!", she'd be in prison.
                       ************
Yet she is NOT.

Because she didn't just "KILL them!".

Post by Chris
                    ************
Your comment
assigned responsibility strictly to her, which was by no means the
case,
                      ***********
Who was the killer?

The husband who took her off her medication.

Post by Chris
               ***********
and this reinforced what I was saying about the view society
still has of women and women's roles. Even the Texas courts, which are
not known for their good common sense, found her to be not
responsible.
              ***********
At least they were consistent.

Wrong yet again. Texas courts don't like killers and do like the death
penalty. "Consistent" would have meant a guilty verdict.

Post by Chris
           **********
You decided she was,
                ********
Correction: Her CHOICE decided she was!

Nope. She was incapable of making a choice. You're digging yourself a
deeper hole, and you're still making my point for me.

Post by Chris
                  *********
and tried to shift the
responsibility off her husband, without even apparently knowing what
had actually happened. Because she was a mom who killed her kids, and
like a lot of other people, that's all you bothered to see.
                      *************
Untrue.

Completely true. You admitted it in the rant paragraph a couple of
responses up.

Post by Chris
              **************
That's exactly the conditioning I was talking about. Women are still
supposed to be wives and mommies, and be good at it. When they are
either not wives and mommies or not good at it, they are viewed as
failures and reviled for it. Men who are not husbands or daddies, or
not good at it, are not viewed or treated the same way.
                    ************
Correct; they're generally viewed as a danger to children; and treated
accordingly.

Only if they've committed a crime against one. Last election, the
family values candidate was a guy that screwed around on his wife for
years, then dumped her because she wasn't pretty enough and married a
young, rich one.
Had Sarah Palin actually had a brain but been older, less "cute", and
been divorced, do you think she'd have gotten the running mate job?

Post by Chris
                   ***********
Once again, thanks for the help.
                     **********
WHAT help?

You did a wonderful job of making my point for me. Twice.

[Chris]

Post by Chris

"pnyikos" <> wrote in message ...
Not a fucking thing.

Translation: "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts."

Just another man trying to tell women what to do!!
Smile.

How do you explain the fact that women make up a substantial
majority
of the leaders of the pro-life movement in the USA? The two biggest
organizations are headed by women: NRLC (Wanda Franz) and ALL (Judie
Brown). The NRLC affiliate in Kansas is headed by a woman, and the
one in South Carolina has been run by women ever since I've known
about it -- the last twenty years.

Randall Terry, Donald Spitz, Troy Newman, Patrick Mahoney, Pat
Robertson, Allan Keyes? All female? The Priests for Life (or at least,
Priests for More Altar Boys)? All female? Paul Hill, John Salvi, Eric
Rudolph, Scott Roeder, Michael Griffin, James Kopp? All female? Those
are the ones at the forefront, the most visible faces of the anti-
abortion crusade. Think about it. I have never once seen the face of
Wanda Franz, or Wendy Wright. I can't recall ever seeing them quoted,
although I probably have at some point. I very rarely see them linked
to. Some of the background leaders may be female, but the face and
name of the movement is all male.
The human mind is a fragile thing. Conditioning is strong and
difficult to break without professional help. Battered women can and
do defend their abusers, because they are conditioned into thinking
the abuser is right. Women are raised on Barbie dolls and Barbie-like
celebrities, develop eating disorders, and battle their weight for a
lifetime. There's a 14 year old girl in Texas custody still convinced
that her "marriage" to Warren Jeffs was blessed by God, and an entire
compound of similar Stepford wives who believe the same way waiting
for her to come home. Andrea Yates is in an institution and her
children are dead because her husband and pastor "knew" she needed
more kids, even after the doctor said No.
**************
Untrue. She's in an institution and her children are dead because she
KILLED
them!
**************

Peter? As I was saying...
Chris? Thanks for helping prove my point.
***************
What point did I help you prove, and how did I do so?

I'm curious. Did you read the paragraph you responded to in its
entirety and can you tell me what it was about?
Once you are able to do that, it will be much easier to explain to you
the point I was making that you were so helpful with.
***************
Knock yourself out....

I'll give it a shot, but if you didn't get the point of the post the
first time it may not do any good...
The post, and the paragraph you jumped into, were about the
conditioning of women by society to be 1) submissive to men and 2)
baby machines, and the effect this conditioning has on women
themselves.
*************
Not even CLOSE. Today's society is, plain and simple, a matriarch;
controlled by feminazis. To suggest anything other would be untrue. The
"equal rights" movement has seen to it that women have MORE rights than men;
and Obama is expanding the gap.

BWAHAHAHA!!!
Oh now THAT was fun to read. Totally untrue, but fun to read.
The only area in which the rights of women are greater than the rights
of men- and here again, this helps make my point- is that of child
custody and support.

***********

Men ALSO have the right to not register for Selective Service.
And when they do go into the military, they have the right to keep their
long hair too. Same with police officers. Gee, how could I have missed that!

************

Custody issues still lean heavily in favor of
mothers over fathers, no matter what may actually be in the best
interest of the child, and support is still automatic whether the man
wanted the child, knew about the child or even had a relationship with
the mother.

Out in the rest of the world: there is still a pay inequity in the
workplace,

************

That's ok, because Obama just signed into law even MORE pay inequity.

**********

rape is still often viewed as the fault of the victim,
domestic violence penalties are light

**********

And virtually non-existent against women. This assumes the offense even
makes it to trial.

************

and restraining orders difficult
to enforce,

*********

If a man can even GET one agasinst a woman.

*********

and appearance is still favored over intelligence or
skill.

***********

Unsure what THAT has to do with gender equal rights. Unless, of course,
you're talking about Hooters. But then again, that corporation seems to be
doing
just fine.

**********

Post by Chris
***********
I used Andrea Yates as an example. Since you are apparently not
familiar with the case details, I will summarize for you: Andrea Yates
had a history of postpartum depression and psychosis and the couple
was warned to stop having children two years before the deaths and a
year before the last child was born. Husband wanted more kids, and
pressured her to go off her antipsychotic medication and have another.
They had another child, she had another psychotic episode, and that's
when the children were killed. That's why she's in a hospital and not
prison.
Got all that?
************
I got it alright. Perpetrator commits crime, court finds perpetrator not
guilty by reason of insanity, court sends perpetrator to mental institution.
What's WORSE is they often find some other poor sap to take the heat (which
in this case would be her husband). This woman clearly was pro-choice since
she was excercising her choice. Problem is, for some strange reason she is
not held accountable for her SOLE choice. Oh, that's right, I forgot; women
are submissive baby machines who are INCAPABLE of being responsible for
their choices. Gee, how dumb of me!

Once again, you make my point for me- you didn't know the details of
the case and when it was explained to you, you dismissed it in favor
of blaming the woman.

**************

The ONLY thing being dismissed is my claims by YOU.

************

Post by Chris
**********
Your comment went right straight through all that, to "She KILLED
them!". Had she just "KILLED them!", she'd be in prison.
************
Yet she is NOT.

Because she didn't just "KILL them!".

***********

You're right; she just placed their heads underwater. They actually killed
themselves by inhaling. Guess they just weren't too bright......

**********

Post by Chris
************
Your comment
assigned responsibility strictly to her, which was by no means the
case,
***********
Who was the killer?

The husband

*********

How did HE kill the children?

*******

who took her off her medication.

Post by Chris
***********
and this reinforced what I was saying about the view society
still has of women and women's roles. Even the Texas courts, which are
not known for their good common sense, found her to be not
responsible.
***********
At least they were consistent.

Wrong yet again. Texas courts don't like killers and do like the death
penalty. "Consistent" would have meant a guilty verdict.

************

Which would have been "good common sense"; thus an INconsistency. I am not
wrong; YOU are.

*************

Post by Chris
**********
You decided she was,
********
Correction: Her CHOICE decided she was!

Nope. She was incapable of making a choice.

**************

Uhuh, incapable of making a choice that she made.

***********

You're digging yourself a
deeper hole, and you're still making my point for me.

************

Which is?

***********

Post by Chris
*********
and tried to shift the
responsibility off her husband, without even apparently knowing what
had actually happened. Because she was a mom who killed her kids, and
like a lot of other people, that's all you bothered to see.
*************
Untrue.

Completely true. You admitted it in the rant paragraph a couple of
responses up.


***********

Enlighten me.

***********

Post by Chris
**************
That's exactly the conditioning I was talking about. Women are still
supposed to be wives and mommies, and be good at it. When they are
either not wives and mommies or not good at it, they are viewed as
failures and reviled for it. Men who are not husbands or daddies, or
not good at it, are not viewed or treated the same way.
************
Correct; they're generally viewed as a danger to children; and treated
accordingly.

Only if they've committed a crime against one.

***********

That could not be FURTHER from the truth.

**********

Last election, the
family values candidate was a guy that screwed around on his wife for
years, then dumped her because she wasn't pretty enough and married a
young, rich one.
Had Sarah Palin actually had a brain but been older, less "cute", and
been divorced, do you think she'd have gotten the running mate job?

************

Irrelevant, non sequitur; and I do not discuss the non-existent "what if"
world.

************

Post by Chris
***********
Once again, thanks for the help.
**********
WHAT help?

You did a wonderful job of making my point for me. Twice.

************

Which is?

**********

[--sexkitten--]

Post by --sexkitten--

Post by Chris
Once again, thanks for the help.
**********
WHAT help?

You did a wonderful job of making my point for me. Twice.
************
Which is?
            **********

Apparently you weren't capable of digesting what I explained to you
the last few times you asked that question, since you keep having to
ask it again. I did warn you that if you didn't understand the first
post, you weren't going to understand the following posts; it appears
that I was once again correct. I'll continue the conversation when you
have read and comprehended the contents of the earlier posts. Here's a
useful reference to help you with the hard words:

http://www.onelook.com/

[Chris]

Post by --sexkitten--

Post by Chris
Once again, thanks for the help.
**********
WHAT help?

You did a wonderful job of making my point for me. Twice.
************
Which is?
**********

Apparently you weren't capable of digesting what I explained to you
the last few times you asked that question, since you keep having to
ask it again.

*************

I digested EVERYTHING you explained. You simply failed to answer the
question, once again.

*********

I did warn you that if you didn't understand the first
post, you weren't going to understand the following posts; it appears
that I was once again correct.

************

I understood the English meaning of your statements. However, if you meant
something different, then perhaps you might want to freshen up on the
language.

*************

I'll continue the conversation when you
have read and comprehended the contents of the earlier posts. Here's a
useful reference to help you with the hard words:

http://www.onelook.com/