|
Home > Archive > Abortion > October 2004 > if you want to impregnate girls/women
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
if you want to impregnate girls/women
|
|
| Johnny 2004-09-29, 11:16 am |
| and do not want a baby, then get a vasectomy.
| |
| Johnny 2004-09-29, 11:16 am |
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:nvn6d.61684$as2.55538@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> and do not want a baby, then get a vasectomy.
I am here to saddle the men who get women pregnant with their created
burdens.
That would straighten the whole mess up.
I am not for the cast-off Chilton-esque false egalitarianism.
We need to stop the killing, and become more responsible people.
| |
| Patrick Lee Humphrey 2004-09-29, 11:16 am |
| "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
>and do not want a baby, then get a vasectomy.
Let me guess -- that's the one thing you haven't done...
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
| |
| Frank Dwyer 2004-09-29, 11:16 am |
| Johnny wrote:
> and do not want a baby, then get a vasectomy.
Most aren't looking to impregnate girls/women, only have sex with them.
| |
| Adam H. 2004-09-29, 11:17 am |
| On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 05:35:19 GMT, Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net>
wrote, akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
>Johnny wrote:
>
>Most aren't looking to impregnate girls/women, only have sex with them.
Of course, those who *are* looking to impregnate women but don't want
a baby have something pretty weird going on upstairs.
---
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful,
and so are we. They never stop thinking about
new ways to harm our country and our people,
and neither do we."
President George W. Bush.
| |
| Johnny 2004-09-29, 11:17 am |
|
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:rQr6d.7703$FF3.5192@news02.roc.ny...
> Johnny wrote:
>
> Most aren't looking to impregnate girls/women, only have sex with them.
>
You forgot how babies are made?
Also, men do look for women to have children with.
| |
| Frank Dwyer 2004-09-30, 7:11 pm |
| Johnny wrote:
> "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
> news:rQr6d.7703$FF3.5192@news02.roc.ny...
>
>
>
> You forgot how babies are made?
You forgot how to read?
> Also, men do look for women to have children with.
Read your post nice and slow, wingnut. "If you want to impregnate...and
don't want a baby..."
Notice how ridiculous that statement is? If they don't want a baby, then
they obviously aren't looking to impregnate anybody.
| |
| Johnny 2004-09-30, 7:11 pm |
|
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:4nE6d.7767$Z34.5955@news02.roc.ny...
> Johnny wrote:
>
> You forgot how to read?
You forgot sex ed?
>
>
> Read your post nice and slow, wingnut. "If you want to impregnate...and
> don't want a baby..."
>
> Notice how ridiculous that statement is? If they don't want a baby, then
> they obviously aren't looking to impregnate anybody.
So, fulfill the agenda and get sterilized.
If they do not want to impregnate anybody then they do not need the capacity
to impregnate.
| |
| Patrick Lee Humphrey 2004-09-30, 7:11 pm |
| "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
>"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
>news:rQr6d.7703$FF3.5192@news02.roc.ny...
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
>You forgot how babies are made?
Did you ever know to begin with?
>Also, men do look for women to have children with.
You're not getting any by pointing that out.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
| |
| Patrick Lee Humphrey 2004-09-30, 7:11 pm |
| "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
>"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
>news:4nE6d.7767$Z34.5955@news02.roc.ny...
[...]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
>So, fulfill the agenda and get sterilized.
Why? No one's obliged to do as you say, now or ever.
>If they do not want to impregnate anybody then they do not need the capacity
>to impregnate.
Too bad you don't decide that for anyone, South Carolina Cuckoo.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
| |
| Patrick Lee Humphrey 2004-09-30, 7:11 pm |
| "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
>"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
>news:szkacv8bphp.fsf@fnord.io.com...
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Apply that to yourself.
Sorry, but I'll keep what I've got. No one has to do as you say, and you
can't stand for that. No one has to do as I say, either, and it doesn't
bother me.
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Apply your reasoning to Planned Parenthood.
They don't decide that for anyone, either -- obviously you're too insane to
deal with the word "choice" and what it means.
>Let me know when you stop crying.
Let me know when your head's reparied.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
| |
| somewriter 2004-09-30, 7:11 pm |
| On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 10:29:41 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
>
>"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
>news:rQr6d.7703$FF3.5192@news02.roc.ny...
>
>You forgot how babies are made?
Not every instance of sex leads to pregnancy, your point?
If that were true, my husband and I would have been in the Guiness
World Book of Records for the most pregnancies in a solitary year.
>Also, men do look for women to have children with.
Not all men.
| |
| somewriter 2004-09-30, 7:11 pm |
| On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:12:16 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
>
>"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
>news:4nE6d.7767$Z34.5955@news02.roc.ny...
>
>You forgot sex ed?
There's a risk of pregnancy (amongst STD's, and what-not).
A risk doesn't mean a definate in every situation.
>
>So, fulfill the agenda and get sterilized.
Why?They may want children in the future?
| |
| Johnny 2004-09-30, 7:11 pm |
|
"somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:fmlnl0loqnd7slhp24mt3fl839s0k06a6b@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:12:16 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> There's a risk of pregnancy (amongst STD's, and what-not).
> A risk doesn't mean a definate in every situation.
>
>
> Why?They may want children in the future?
But not if they get someone pregnant?
LOL!!!!!!
What a ridiculous thing to assume about someone who is for abortions via
Pro-Choice.
The future is nine months away after impregnating a woman.
You so sure they want children in the future?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!
| |
| somewriter 2004-10-01, 7:09 pm |
| On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 09:55:15 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
>
>"somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
>news:fmlnl0loqnd7slhp24mt3fl839s0k06a6b@4ax.com...
>
>But not if they get someone pregnant?
>LOL!!!!!!
That doesn't mean they want children.
>What a ridiculous thing to assume about someone who is for abortions via
>Pro-Choice.
>The future is nine months away after impregnating a woman.
The future could be immediate if he chose to adopt his wife's child.
>You so sure they want children in the future?
It's possible. Who are you to judge, either way? You're not
omniscient.
| |
| Johnny 2004-10-01, 7:10 pm |
|
"somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:v4cpl0pqd37f9usdsgjj2jcj5usgm4muq8@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 09:55:15 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> That doesn't mean they want children.
So, why let them perform sex too early if they do not want children?
Abortion kills children.
>
> The future could be immediate if he chose to adopt his wife's child.
>
We are discussing abortion, right?
>
> It's possible. Who are you to judge, either way? You're not
> omniscient.
They do not prove that they want children in the future because they abort
that which would be their future child.
| |
| somewriter 2004-10-01, 7:10 pm |
| On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 05:44:46 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
>
>"somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
>news:v4cpl0pqd37f9usdsgjj2jcj5usgm4muq8@4ax.com...
>
>So, why let them perform sex too early if they do not want children?
Too early?
>Abortion kills children.
Fetuses aren't children.
>
>We are discussing abortion, right?
When a Pro-Lifer introduces "adoption" as an 'alternative' to
abortion, you don't disregard their comments -- but when I bring it up
as an alternative to physically enduring pregnancy, it's not 'staying
on topic.'
>
>They do not prove that they want children in the future...
You don't know.
| |
| Johnny 2004-10-01, 7:10 pm |
|
"somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:gcdql0l1fuoejutono05gu8r4d4cee32ua@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 05:44:46 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Too early?
>
Yes. If they do not want children now, then why should they assume the risk
of producing something they do not want?
>
> Fetuses aren't children.
>
What are they then?
Tell me what they are then.
>
> When a Pro-Lifer introduces "adoption" as an 'alternative' to
> abortion, you don't disregard their comments -- but when I bring it up
> as an alternative to physically enduring pregnancy, it's not 'staying
> on topic.'
Abortion is the topic here.
>
> You don't know.
I know.
They do not want children in the future because they have them aborted
before they are born.
| |
| Frank Dwyer 2004-10-01, 7:10 pm |
| Johnny wrote:
> and do not want a baby, then get a vasectomy.
Most aren't looking to impregnate girls/women, only have sex with them.
| |
| somewriter 2004-10-01, 7:10 pm |
| On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 07:08:09 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
>
>"somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
>news:gcdql0l1fuoejutono05gu8r4d4cee32ua@4ax.com...
>
>Yes. If they do not want children now, then why should they assume the risk
>of producing something they do not want?
So I should stop having sex with my husband for enjoyment just because
we don't want to procreate?
>
>What are they then?
>Tell me what they are then.
Fetuses.
>
>Abortion is the topic here.
Let me see you say that when a fellow Pro-Lifer mentions adoption as
an alternative to abortion.
Abortion hasn't anything to do with killing children. Period.
>
>
>I know.
As I have mentioned earlier, you are not omninescent.
>They do not want children in the future because they have them aborted
>before they are born.
How can you abort something that doesn't exist, other than a thought?
| |
| Johnny 2004-10-01, 7:10 pm |
|
"somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:82kql09mijoipsqioc7lg09jfgtat90k3b@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 07:08:09 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> So I should stop having sex with my husband for enjoyment just because
> we don't want to procreate?
If you use surgical abortion as a method of birth control, then you should
rethink your position.
>
>
> Fetuses.
>
What type of fetus is it?
>
> Let me see you say that when a fellow Pro-Lifer mentions adoption as
> an alternative to abortion.
>
Why?
When?
You want an invitation?
> Abortion hasn't anything to do with killing children. Period.
BULLSHIT!
Stop lying.
>
> As I have mentioned earlier, you are not omninescent.
>
But, I know.
>
> How can you abort something that doesn't exist, other than a thought?
Why do they obtain abortions then?
Why does it require a procedure called abortion if it is only a thought?
| |
| somewriter 2004-10-01, 7:10 pm |
| On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 09:26:04 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
>
>"somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
>news:82kql09mijoipsqioc7lg09jfgtat90k3b@4ax.com...
>
>If you use surgical abortion as a method of birth control, then you should
>rethink your position.
I don't get pregnant with every instance of sex I have with my spouse,
you dolt.
>
>What type of fetus is it?
A fetus that is human (but not yet a HUMAN being).
>
>Why?
Hypocrite.
>When?
>You want an invitation?
>
>
>BULLSHIT!
>Stop lying.
I am not. Why don't YOU stop lying by saying that it is!
>
>But, I know.
But, you don't.
>
>Why do they obtain abortions then?
NONE_Of_YOUR_XXXXING_BUSINESS.
Understand?
| |
| Johnny 2004-10-01, 7:10 pm |
|
"somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:e3nql0pv00l17lv5kr2supb4osnfjcbv6g@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 09:26:04 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> I don't get pregnant with every instance of sex I have with my spouse,
> you dolt.
Who cares?
If you are for having your own childfen killed via surgical abortion you are
off in your skull.
>
>
> A fetus that is human (but not yet a HUMAN being).
>
It does not have being?
It does not exist?
>
> Hypocrite.
>
You?
>
> I am not. Why don't YOU stop lying by saying that it is!
>
It does.
If you had an abortion before, I am sure you want to belive that no child
was killed.
But, that is not acceptable.
Until you admit that abortion does kill children, you will not be able to
make adequate policy in this area.
>
> But, you don't.
>
But, I do know.
>
> NONE_Of_YOUR_XXXXING_BUSINESS.
>
Oh, shcuks. Another one flies off the handle.
I know how they do it.
That is why I say I know.
It is published and promoted so much here, almost everyone knows what it is
if you ask them.
> Understand?
Yes. I understand.
Why are you disturbed?
| |
| Frank Dwyer 2004-10-02, 7:10 pm |
| Johnny wrote:
> "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
> news:4nE6d.7767$Z34.5955@news02.roc.ny...
>
>
>
> You forgot sex ed?
I suppose it's possible that you never learned how to read.
>
>
> So, fulfill the agenda and get sterilized.
That would be the agenda if you had said "if you DON'T want to
impregnate", but you didn't.
> If they do not want to impregnate anybody then they do not need the capacity
> to impregnate.
See?... Your belated addition of "do not" completely changes the meaning
of your original post. Specifically, it turns it into a post that makes
sense.
And to the now modified original post, I'd agree. If a guy is sexually
active and is certain that he does not want children... ever... then he
should consider a vasectomy.
| |
| Frank Dwyer 2004-10-02, 7:10 pm |
| Johnny wrote:
> "somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
> news:v4cpl0pqd37f9usdsgjj2jcj5usgm4muq8@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> So, why let them perform sex too early if they do not want children?
Let them? You think you could stop them?
> Abortion kills children.
Semantics kills intelligent discussion.
>
>
> We are discussing abortion, right?
Your original post wasn't addressing abortion, what makes you think you
are now?
>
>
> They do not prove that they want children in the future because they abort
> that which would be their future child.
They don't need to prove anything to anyone. If they say (to anyone or
no one) that they might want a kid at a later time in life, then that's
the end of it right there.
You have absolutely NO SAY in the matter... EVER.
| |
| Frank Dwyer 2004-10-02, 7:10 pm |
| Johnny wrote:
> "somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
> news:gcdql0l1fuoejutono05gu8r4d4cee32ua@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> Yes. If they do not want children now, then why should they assume the risk
> of producing something they do not want?
Because they're adults, and adults are free to assume any risk they wish.
There's another absolute that you can never change.
>
>
> What are they then?
> Tell me what they are then.
They're called fetuses. Did you miss it the first time?
>
>
> Abortion is the topic here.
Then why did you start a thread that had nothing to do with that topic?
>
>
> I know.
> They do not want children in the future because they have them aborted
> before they are born.
"in the future".
Even in your insanity, you are still able to realize that the future is
an unknown, right?
| |
| Johnny 2004-10-02, 7:10 pm |
|
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:wsn7d.8093$Ey5.6639@news02.roc.ny...
> Johnny wrote:
>
>
> Because they're adults, and adults are free to assume any risk they wish.
Since 1973?
The risk was much greater before 1973.
> There's another absolute that you can never change.
Roe v Wade can be overturned.
>
> They're called fetuses. Did you miss it the first time?
>
Fetuses?
Non-human?
Non-existent?
So, kill them?
>
> Then why did you start a thread that had nothing to do with that topic?
>
To irk you?
>
> "in the future".
> Even in your insanity, you are still able to realize that the future is an
> unknown, right?
Unknown?
LOL!!!!!!!!
That is a no brainer the way they run this shithole of a nation now.
UNKNOWN!
| |
| Johnny 2004-10-02, 7:10 pm |
|
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:Snn7d.8092$nJ5.4357@news02.roc.ny...
> Johnny wrote:
>
>
> Let them? You think you could stop them?
We could make them stop aborting and becoming whores and gamers and unstable
pleasure house fools.
>
>
> Semantics kills intelligent discussion.
>
How many dead babies in your closet?
>
> Your original post wasn't addressing abortion, what makes you think you
> are now?
>
It is related.
>
> They don't need to prove anything to anyone.
Why am I asked for proof then?
> If they say (to anyone or no one) that they might want a kid at a later
> time in life, then that's the end of it right there.
> You have absolutely NO SAY in the matter... EVER.
I am saying what I want to say now and I will continue to say it and that
could be forever.
What re you going to do about that?
The First Amendment grants me the RIGHT to say whatever I want in this area.
| |
| Johnny 2004-10-02, 7:10 pm |
|
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:Nin7d.8091$ov5.2500@news02.roc.ny...
> Johnny wrote:
>
> I suppose it's possible that you never learned how to read.
abcdefg
>
>
> That would be the agenda if you had said "if you DON'T want to
> impregnate", but you didn't.
>
Why are you changing what I posted?
>
> See?... Your belated addition of "do not" completely changes the meaning
> of your original post. Specifically, it turns it into a post that makes
> sense.
>
You have difficulty with the tone of the post?
> And to the now modified original post, I'd agree. If a guy is sexually
> active and is certain that he does not want children... ever... then he
> should consider a vasectomy.
What is the difference?
What is the end result if a guy impregnates a woman who has to abort the
pregnancy?
| |
| somewriter 2004-10-02, 7:10 pm |
| On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 11:29:47 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
>
>"somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
>news:e3nql0pv00l17lv5kr2supb4osnfjcbv6g@4ax.com...
>
>Who cares?
Evidently you do.
>If you are for having your own childfen killed via surgical abortion you are
>off in your skull.
Huh? Both of the children I ever had are still alive. WHy would I want
to murder them?
>
>It does not have being?
>It does not exist?
It does not have the societal status of "human being."
>
>You?
You.
>
>It does.
Nope.
>If you had an abortion before, I am sure you want to belive that no child
>was killed.
>But, that is not acceptable.
>Until you admit that abortion does kill children...
How can I admit to something that isn't true?
>
>But, I do know.
But, you don't.
>
>Oh, shcuks.
Yes. Oh "shicks," drunkard.
| |
| Johnny 2004-10-02, 7:10 pm |
|
"somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:p0qsl051tr9shs43tshoaanceed10muaeh@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 11:29:47 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Evidently you do.
>
>
> Huh? Both of the children I ever had are still alive. WHy would I want
> to murder them?
>
>
> It does not have the societal status of "human being."
In the false segment of our society.
In the truth segment it does have the status of human being.
>
>
> You.
>
Not me.
>
> Nope.
>
Sorry.
Lies will not protect you forever.
>
> How can I admit to something that isn't true?
>
What about the other cases?
>
>
>
> But, you don't.
>
I do know.
>
> Yes. Oh "shicks," drunkard.
I am not a drunkard.
I am a denied, neglected, downcast member of a duopolistic society that
respects liars above truthtellers.
| |
| somewriter 2004-10-02, 7:11 pm |
| On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 08:05:58 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
>
>"somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
>news:p0qsl051tr9shs43tshoaanceed10muaeh@4ax.com...
>
>In the false segment of our society.
There's nothing "false" about the truth.
>
>Not me.
Yes, you.
>
>Sorry.
>Lies will not protect you forever.
I am not the one hiding behind them -- you are.
>
>What about the other cases?
We're discussing abortion, remember? Or is that too inconveniently
ON-TOPIC for you?
>
>I do know.
But you don't.
>
>I am not a drunkard.
Only that you are.
| |
| Johnny 2004-10-02, 7:11 pm |
|
"somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:a36ul05s535qe50gu5jsn1adktjl48hr67@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 08:05:58 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> There's nothing "false" about the truth.
Truth?
You trust attorneys to determine what the truth is?
>
>
> Yes, you.
>
Wrong.
>
> I am not the one hiding behind them -- you are.
Not me.
I do not need to tell a lie to stay in the mud of lies.
>
> We're discussing abortion, remember? Or is that too inconveniently
> ON-TOPIC for you?
You lost track?
>
>
> But you don't.
>
I know.
>
> Only that you are.
I am not a drunkard, and even if I were such, that would be much better than
being a liar like the Pro-Choicers.
| |
| somewriter 2004-10-02, 7:11 pm |
| On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 19:09:44 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
>
>"somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
>news:a36ul05s535qe50gu5jsn1adktjl48hr67@4ax.com...
>
>Truth?
>You trust attorneys to determine what the truth is?
Attorneys for Duke Energy did not coin the societal term "human
being."
>
>Wrong.
I am right.
>
>Not me.
Yes, you.
>I do not need to tell a lie to stay in the mud of lies.
You've done it for over a decade, and look at you -- still a complete
wreck with no intent in getting off your XXX and curing your
psychological problem legally.
>
>You lost track?
You can't answer a direct question?
>
>I know.
But you don't.
>
>
>I am not a drunkard...
Only that you are.
|
| |
|
|