soc.women

Ken Chaddock wrote:
>Gwenyth Bennet wrote:
>
>> On Aug 3, 7:27 am, Martin wrote:
>>
>>>Gwen wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Aug 3, 6:29 am, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 19:26:40 -0400, "james g. keegan jr."
>>>>> wrote, in part:
>>>
>>>>>>As written, the bill would ban women from
>>>>>>seeking an abortion without written consent from the father of the
>>>>>>fetus. In cases where the identity of the father is unknown, women
>>>>>>would be required to submit a list of possible fathers.
>>>>>
>>>>>This is disgusting, because the murder of an innocent child is no less
>>>>>murder simply because the woman has her partner as an accessory.
>>>
>>>>Lying about the issue isn't going to score you points with anybody but
>>>>the slimeballs.
>>>
>>>hang on a sec.
>>>
>>>You did read the paragraph below? I thought Quad put forward good
>>>arguments from both a pro and anti view as to why this proposal was a
>>>load of crap.
>
>> I addressed John Savard's lie.
>
> Which "lie" would that be ? Many pro-life supporters *BELIEVE* that a
>fetus is simply one stage in the continuum of human life and as such, is
>as inseparable from the child it will become as that child is from the
>adult it will become.

Pro-liars believe many irrational things. You even believe that a
fetus is a human being worthy of rights but a pregnant women is not a
human being with rights.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@