"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:50:11 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:03:11 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Jim" wrote in message
...

"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in
message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

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

What a crock of absolute crap most of you are.

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




Bull**** Harry. That may be your little warped "take" on the
subject,
but it doesn't reflect mine or many others.

Eisboch

Abortion is a very complex issue, but I have never understood who
ANYONE
would not think a fetus is a unborn baby. The definition of a fetus
is
an unborn mammal (normally in discussion of humans) from 8 weeks to
birth.

The pro abortion people like to divert the discussion but Harry's
diversion is a new one "a repressed Freudian fear of sexuality and a
need to control woman"..... WOW

Pin this post to his jacket and march him right to the shrink's
office.


Well, based on what we've seen in the news, Republicans *do* seem to
have
some odd sexual tendencies, usually paired with public statements
condemning
exactly those tendencies.


Were those 'Republicans' in that San Francisco parade, or are those
tendencies the 'norm' for you guys?
--
John H

Here's a nice chart for your enlightenment.
http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...Hypocrites.jpg


You failed to answer the question.
--
John H


You failed to include hypocrisy in your so-called observation. Gays in a
parade don't condemn something and then do exactly what they condemned.