"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
news

Find something else to whine about!

What's the matter Bertie? Does the needless loss of human life mean that
little to you?

Bert Robbins wrote:


Nobody is saying that you can't do just that. But, when a man and a woman
have sex and the woman gets pregnant then the decision has to be made by the
two of them.


Nope.

We're talking about the children here, dummy, not their parents.
OF course, as a conservative GOP'er, you really don't give a damn about
the children or the problems they face. After all, they've been
born...and don't need championing, eh?

I am worried about the child that is sucked out and thrown away due to the
parents selfishness. The selfless act is raising the child once it is
concieved.


It's a fetus. Not a child.

Don White wrote:

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
news

Find something else to whine about!

What's the matter Bertie? Does the needless loss of human life mean that
little to you?



Life is cheap to Bert and the rest of the right-wing trash. They are the
ones who dismiss the deaths of US soldiers and Iraqi civilians in the
current war, and the deaths of those Canadians killed by that repugnant
pilotl.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:


Nobody is saying that you can't do just that. But, when a man and a
woman
have sex and the woman gets pregnant then the decision has to be made by
the
two of them.


Nope.

Why not, the child is a product of the two. There haven't been any
immaculate conceptions in about 2000 years.


We're talking about the children here, dummy, not their parents.
OF course, as a conservative GOP'er, you really don't give a damn about
the children or the problems they face. After all, they've been
born...and don't need championing, eh?

I am worried about the child that is sucked out and thrown away due to
the
parents selfishness. The selfless act is raising the child once it is
concieved.


It's a fetus. Not a child.

Says who?

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message ...
"Don White" wrote in message
...
It's official. The US military fined Maj. Harry 'Psycho' Schmidt 2 half
months pay.. (just over $ 5K) for killin' 4 Canadian soldiers. What's that
....just over $ 1250.00 per body. This of course doesn't count the
additional 8 injured...one of which lost an eye.

Killer Kowboy Schmidt thinks that's too much and is appealing the ruling.
There are some intelligent men in the military though. Lt.-General Bruce
Carlson, presiding officer at the trial, called Schmidt "arrogant" &
"rash"
citing lack of flight discipline and blatant disobeying direction to hold
fire.
His "willful misconduct directly caused the most egregious consequences
imaginable". The general also cited Schmidt's "lack of integrity in not
taking responsibility for his actions" and blaming others.

I realize that different cultures hold the value of human life
differently,
but I will certainly be contacting my elected representative anytime there
are rumors of Canadian military joining Bush's adventures.

Find something else to whine about!

Whine?? Do you think that, if those killed were your relatives, that
you'd consider it whining when you spoke out about the stupid and
selfish killings?

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 19:22:05 -0400, "Bert Robbins"
wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
WaIIy wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 11:58:18 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

We don't value life much in the United States, not, of course, unless it
is a fetus. Then we'll kill to protect it.

No, you would just elect to kill the baby.

No judge, no jury, no conscience.


It's not a baby, it's a fetus. And the decision over whether to stay
pregnant or not is a decision that rightfully belongs to the mother and
her medical specialist.

Depends upon what you believe. You obviously take the convienent view to
your goal of promoting behavior where responsibility is not wanted.

As I said before, if you had a child of yours that was born in the second
tri-mester and is thriving your view would be different.

You righties, but not necessarily you, Wally, are absolute hypocrites on
the false "right-to-life" issue. Most righties don't give a tinker's
dam about the problems millions of children already here facr in terms
of medical care, shelter, food, clothing and enjoying a modest lifestyle.

This gets back to responsibility. Why should I be held monitarily and
socially responsible for your lack of judgement in having wanton sex.

Sometimes I think righties are anti-choice because prevention of
abortions provides plenty of fodder for military expansionism.

You already have the choice to have sex or not have sex. If you have sex and
a pregnancy results you have the responsibility to stand up and take
responsibility and raise the child.


Don't talk about personal responsibility. That gives liberals hives.
Society is responsible for each and every problem that happens, and
should bear the burden for their indiscretions.

Dave

basskisser wrote:

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message ...
"Don White" wrote in message
...
It's official. The US military fined Maj. Harry 'Psycho' Schmidt 2 half
months pay.. (just over $ 5K) for killin' 4 Canadian soldiers. What's that
....just over $ 1250.00 per body. This of course doesn't count the
additional 8 injured...one of which lost an eye.

Killer Kowboy Schmidt thinks that's too much and is appealing the ruling.
There are some intelligent men in the military though. Lt.-General Bruce
Carlson, presiding officer at the trial, called Schmidt "arrogant" &
"rash"
citing lack of flight discipline and blatant disobeying direction to hold
fire.
His "willful misconduct directly caused the most egregious consequences
imaginable". The general also cited Schmidt's "lack of integrity in not
taking responsibility for his actions" and blaming others.

I realize that different cultures hold the value of human life
differently,
but I will certainly be contacting my elected representative anytime there
are rumors of Canadian military joining Bush's adventures.

Find something else to whine about!

Whine?? Do you think that, if those killed were your relatives, that
you'd consider it whining when you spoke out about the stupid and
selfish killings?


Bert's a Konservatrasher...he doesn't give a damn about who is killed,
so long as he can control women who get pregnant.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:


Nobody is saying that you can't do just that. But, when a man and a
woman
have sex and the woman gets pregnant then the decision has to be made
by
the
two of them.


Nope.

Why not, the child is a product of the two. There haven't been any
immaculate conceptions in about 2000 years.


You obviously do not know what the term "immaculate conception" means.
In reference to Mary, it means she was brought about without original
sin. The term you probably want is "virgin birth." No theology courses
in your background, Berti-Krap?

I see that you have been studying your enemy.


We're talking about the children here, dummy, not their parents.
OF course, as a conservative GOP'er, you really don't give a damn
about
the children or the problems they face. After all, they've been
born...and don't need championing, eh?

I am worried about the child that is sucked out and thrown away due
to
the
parents selfishness. The selfless act is raising the child once it is
concieved.


It's a fetus. Not a child.

Says who?


Lots of people, including the majority of those with serious education
in biological sciences. References to a fetus as a child is the result
of fundie-think, not science. No surprise. You're the guy who thinks
immaculate conception refers to non-sexual impregnation among humans.

There was a time when those with serious education in the physical sciences
thought that the earth was flat and that the earth is the center of the
universe. Well, they turned out to be wrong too.

Bert Robbins wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:


Nobody is saying that you can't do just that. But, when a man and a
woman
have sex and the woman gets pregnant then the decision has to be made
by
the
two of them.


Nope.

Why not, the child is a product of the two. There haven't been any
immaculate conceptions in about 2000 years.


You obviously do not know what the term "immaculate conception" means.
In reference to Mary, it means she was brought about without original
sin. The term you probably want is "virgin birth." No theology courses
in your background, Berti-Krap?

I see that you have been studying your enemy.


Sorry, Bertie, but I started learning about Catholic theology 55 years
ago, as a wee laddie hanging out at St. Aedans in New Haven. Even as a
pre-teenager, I knew the difference between immaculate conception and
virgin birth. It's too bad you had such a ****-poor education, eh?






We're talking about the children here, dummy, not their parents.
OF course, as a conservative GOP'er, you really don't give a damn
about
the children or the problems they face. After all, they've been
born...and don't need championing, eh?

I am worried about the child that is sucked out and thrown away due
to
the
parents selfishness. The selfless act is raising the child once it is
concieved.


It's a fetus. Not a child.

Says who?


Lots of people, including the majority of those with serious education
in biological sciences. References to a fetus as a child is the result
of fundie-think, not science. No surprise. You're the guy who thinks
immaculate conception refers to non-sexual impregnation among humans.

There was a time when those with serious education in the physical sciences
thought that the earth was flat and that the earth is the center of the
universe. Well, they turned out to be wrong too.

Just as wrong as you are.

If you don't know the difference between immaculate conception and
virgin birth, you ought to stay out of discussions with religious moral
overtones. It just makes you look...dumber.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:


Nobody is saying that you can't do just that. But, when a man and
a
woman
have sex and the woman gets pregnant then the decision has to be
made
by
the
two of them.


Nope.

Why not, the child is a product of the two. There haven't been any
immaculate conceptions in about 2000 years.


You obviously do not know what the term "immaculate conception" means.
In reference to Mary, it means she was brought about without original
sin. The term you probably want is "virgin birth." No theology courses
in your background, Berti-Krap?

I see that you have been studying your enemy.


Sorry, Bertie, but I started learning about Catholic theology 55 years
ago, as a wee laddie hanging out at St. Aedans in New Haven. Even as a
pre-teenager, I knew the difference between immaculate conception and
virgin birth. It's too bad you had such a ****-poor education, eh?

So did you win the lawsuit or did you just put it behind you and forget
about the abuse?

We're talking about the children here, dummy, not their parents.
OF course, as a conservative GOP'er, you really don't give a damn
about
the children or the problems they face. After all, they've been
born...and don't need championing, eh?

I am worried about the child that is sucked out and thrown away
due
to
the
parents selfishness. The selfless act is raising the child once it
is
concieved.


It's a fetus. Not a child.

Says who?


Lots of people, including the majority of those with serious education
in biological sciences. References to a fetus as a child is the result
of fundie-think, not science. No surprise. You're the guy who thinks
immaculate conception refers to non-sexual impregnation among humans.

There was a time when those with serious education in the physical
sciences
thought that the earth was flat and that the earth is the center of the
universe. Well, they turned out to be wrong too.

Just as wrong as you are.

If you don't know the difference between immaculate conception and
virgin birth, you ought to stay out of discussions with religious moral
overtones. It just makes you look...dumber.

Ah the joys of Usenet, where anybody can be anything. You can have a 36'
Zimmerman like Lobsta' boat and a wife that is a MD PhD.