soc.women

Ken Chaddock wrote:
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> The only liar in this thread appears to be you Ray.

"I know you are but what am I?"

[...]
> I realize that you, like many others, don't have the moral fortitude to
>accept that abortion (with current technology) means killing a fetus
>that is a developing human being

In the same way that using a condom kills a million developing human
beings.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@