Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:46:04 -0500, HK wrote:

You anti-abortionists are a panic. You're "pro-life" until a fetus is
born and then most of you don't give a crap whether the kid lives or
dies or what kind of life it lives.

What the hell are you talking about? You think it's better to kill a
baby under the reprehensible construct of "reproductive rights"?


I think it is entirely up to a woman and her doctor to determine in the
first three months of a pregnancy if it should go full term. After that,
if there are compelling medical reasons for an abortion, it should be
allowed.




Here's your "reproductive right" - it's nothing more than a feel good
term for murder - period.

You and you asshole abortionist buddies are murderers.

You join the military and are more than willing to killing women and
children and burn villages, and you're pro death penalty.

Care to prove that?

Prove what? That many of those who claim to be so "pro-life" don't get
nearly as upset when non-combatant, non-involved men, women and children
are killed as a result of war, or that some of those "pro-lifers" engage
in the killing themselves? When's the last time any "pro-lifer" here
expressed real concern or horror over all the innocents being killed in
Iraq?

At its base your "pro-life-ness" is little more than your slightly
repressed Freudian fear of sexuality and your need to control women.

Ah yes - the last resort of the hedonistic pussy boy - no need for
personal responsibility, ethics and morals - just kill 'em all and
avoid responsibility.


There are lots of cites in academic literature about the ways women are
and have been repressed. Keeping them "barefoot and pregnant" is one way
to do this. Keeping them from owning property was (and is, in some
societies) another way. Women who have control over their lives (and
their bodies) are seen as a threat to a male-dominated society.

Freudians (of which I am not one) would have a ball in this newsgroup.