Discussion:
Abortion is not allowed because it is against the Law of God!
Add Reply
wolfbat359
2017-11-30 10:23:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Loading Image...
m***@my-deja.com
2017-11-30 11:54:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by wolfbat359
https://scontent-dft4-3.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/24176779_10215255909179954_6736514869540157171_n.jpg?oh=100f7dba40e687afcd83043d5d3a7627&oe=5AD0CBA4
Wow. What religion is this?
Jews and Christians know of a similar story, but it was a pharaoh, a king, a man.
But aside from religion, even atheist believe
killing another human is wrong.
GLOBALIST
2017-11-30 12:00:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by wolfbat359
https://scontent-dft4-3.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/24176779_10215255909179954_6736514869540157171_n.jpg?oh=100f7dba40e687afcd83043d5d3a7627&oe=5AD0CBA4
Another atheist, who is a Scripture scholar
In the Old Testament the Egyptians ordered
Jewish babies to be killed
In the New Testament King Herod ordered
the first born males to be killed
You may not realize it but neither
of these guys answered to a Jewish God.
Jack Fate
2017-12-03 16:51:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GLOBALIST
Post by wolfbat359
https://scontent-dft4-3.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/24176779_10215255909179954_6736514869540157171_n.jpg?oh=100f7dba40e687afcd83043d5d3a7627&oe=5AD0CBA4
Another atheist, who is a Scripture scholar
In the Old Testament the Egyptians ordered
Jewish babies to be killed
In the New Testament King Herod ordered
the first born males to be killed
You may not realize it but neither
of these guys answered to a Jewish God.
There is no god, Jewish or otherwise, fool. Your piss poor excuse for a
religion was formed to control low IQ fools like you. Course, you break
your commandments every fucking day but you think it's OK because you
confessed.
Tzatz Ziki
2017-12-04 04:05:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
There
"...but I will no longer be posting here. No one here is going to change
so, basically, I'm wasting the little time I have left by posting to
this obscure little group full of stupid bigoted and racist Trump
lovers."
d***@gmail.com
2017-11-30 13:46:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
If wolfbat cannot see the good works of God, but he can see the evil works of Satan, then wolfbat must already be in Hell. If wolfbat pretends not to see the evil in abortion, then he is where he belongs. 😈

Eugene FitzAubrey
wolfbat359
2017-11-30 19:09:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
If wolfbat cannot see the good works of God, but he can see the evil works of Satan, then wolfbat must already be in Hell. If wolfbat pretends not to see the evil in abortion, then he is where he belongs. 😈
Eugene FitzAubrey
How about the extremely large number of Abortions (miscarriages) God causes??????
d***@gmail.com
2017-11-30 22:05:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Why doesn't God run the world the way I think He should? That's the question a lot of people ask. There was a Door to which I found no key, there was a Veil past which I could not see. But I try to make do anyway. Je fais mon possible.

Eugene FitzAubrey
El Castor
2017-12-01 09:18:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 02:23:11 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
https://scontent-dft4-3.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/24176779_10215255909179954_6736514869540157171_n.jpg?oh=100f7dba40e687afcd83043d5d3a7627&oe=5AD0CBA4
If a genetic marker for LGBTQ can be identified, would you have any
objection to abortion?
wolfbat359
2017-12-01 11:36:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 02:23:11 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
https://scontent-dft4-3.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/24176779_10215255909179954_6736514869540157171_n.jpg?oh=100f7dba40e687afcd83043d5d3a7627&oe=5AD0CBA4
If a genetic marker for LGBTQ can be identified, would you have any
objection to abortion?
Why would one want to abort in this case?
Gary
2017-12-01 13:24:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by wolfbat359
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 02:23:11 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
https://scontent-dft4-3.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/24176779_10215255909179954_6736514869540157171_n.jpg?oh=100f7dba40e687afcd83043d5d3a7627&oe=5AD0CBA4
If a genetic marker for LGBTQ can be identified, would you have any
objection to abortion?
Why would one want to abort in this case?
If you have to ask --- nobody can explain it to you.
El Castor
2017-12-01 19:48:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 03:36:35 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 02:23:11 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
https://scontent-dft4-3.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/24176779_10215255909179954_6736514869540157171_n.jpg?oh=100f7dba40e687afcd83043d5d3a7627&oe=5AD0CBA4
If a genetic marker for LGBTQ can be identified, would you have any
objection to abortion?
Why would one want to abort in this case?
You didn't answer the question ...

If a genetic marker for LGBTQ can be identified, would you have any
objection to abortion??????
wolfbat359
2017-12-01 20:37:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 03:36:35 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 02:23:11 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
https://scontent-dft4-3.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/24176779_10215255909179954_6736514869540157171_n.jpg?oh=100f7dba40e687afcd83043d5d3a7627&oe=5AD0CBA4
If a genetic marker for LGBTQ can be identified, would you have any
objection to abortion?
Why would one want to abort in this case?
You didn't answer the question ...
If a genetic marker for LGBTQ can be identified, would you have any
objection to abortion??????
I see no such reply to such a question but the one I gave!
d***@gmail.com
2017-12-01 21:19:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
When I referred to a 'strict' male homosexual, I meant to exclude bisexuals, who obviously could impregnate a woman. Horny young men who have been separated from women first by puritanism and now by feminism and lesbianism might be driven to sex with men.

Eugene FitzAubrey
wolfbat359
2017-12-01 21:28:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
When I referred to a 'strict' male homosexual, I meant to exclude bisexuals, who obviously could impregnate a woman. Horny young men who have been separated from women first by puritanism and now by feminism and lesbianism might be driven to sex with men.
Eugene FitzAubrey
Can I say nonsense! I don't see men driven away from women for reason!
d***@gmail.com
2017-12-02 00:53:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Of course you can say nonsense, wolfbat. Do it for mother. ☺

Eugene FitzAubrey
islander
2017-12-02 02:05:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
When I referred to a 'strict' male homosexual, I meant to exclude bisexuals, who obviously could impregnate a woman. Horny young men who have been separated from women first by puritanism and now by feminism and lesbianism might be driven to sex with men.
Eugene FitzAubrey
Are you implying that feminism and lesbianism are causes of homosexuality?
d***@gmail.com
2017-12-02 14:56:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Yes, Islander, I think that feminists and lesbians are less interested in men than other women. Not as friendly, not as inviting. I wonder if anyone has studied the rise of feminism and the rise of the gay movement to see if there is a connection.

Eugene FitzAubrey
d***@gmail.com
2017-12-02 15:01:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
My first sentence was poorly written. I meant to say that feminists and lesbians are less interested in men than other women are.

Eugene FitzAubrey
islander
2017-12-02 16:21:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
My first sentence was poorly written. I meant to say that feminists and lesbians are less interested in men than other women are.
Eugene FitzAubrey
You can certainly say that for lesbians, but not for feminists.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-12-02 17:38:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by d***@gmail.com
My first sentence was poorly written. I meant to say that feminists and lesbians are less interested in men than other women are.
Eugene FitzAubrey
You can certainly say that for lesbians, but not for feminists.
The two girls downstairs, who are the only Lesbians I
know well, are perfectly fine with guys. They just don't
want to have sex with them.

My first roommate is a Lesbian, and I still know her
well, but she's lived in LA for 41 years now so I only see
her on her rare short trips to San Francisco, when she
stays at my place.
Gary
2017-12-02 15:31:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Yes, Islander, I think that feminists and lesbians are less interested in men than other women. Not as friendly, not as inviting. I wonder if anyone has studied the rise of feminism and the rise of the gay movement to see if there is a connection.
I would suggest that feminism and quaysm are closely related. The more men the feminist
can interest in turning qu -- ah, I mean gay --- the less competition they the feminazis
will have in the real world.
islander
2017-12-02 18:48:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by d***@gmail.com
Yes, Islander, I think that feminists and lesbians are less interested in men than other women. Not as friendly, not as inviting. I wonder if anyone has studied the rise of feminism and the rise of the gay movement to see if there is a connection.
I would suggest that feminism and quaysm are closely related. The more men the feminist
can interest in turning qu -- ah, I mean gay --- the less competition they the feminazis
will have in the real world.
I hate to break it to you, but it is straight men who most oppose equal
rights for women.
Gary
2017-12-02 20:36:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by Gary
Post by d***@gmail.com
Yes, Islander, I think that feminists and lesbians are less interested in men than other women. Not as friendly, not as inviting. I wonder if anyone has studied the rise of feminism and the rise of the gay movement to see if there is a connection.
I would suggest that feminism and quaysm are closely related. The more men the feminist
can interest in turning qu -- ah, I mean gay --- the less competition they the feminazis
will have in the real world.
I hate to break it to you, but it is straight men who most oppose equal
rights for women.
True. And the more these men turn gay -- the stronger become the feminists.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-12-02 15:49:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Yes, Islander, I think that feminists and lesbians are less interested in men than other women. Not as friendly, not as inviting. I wonder if anyone has studied the rise of feminism and the rise of the gay movement to see if there is a connection.
I think there is a connection because both women and gays are
discriminated against in part because of expected gender roles. Kudos
to feminism for paving the way for gay rights.
islander
2017-12-02 18:56:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by d***@gmail.com
Yes, Islander, I think that feminists and lesbians are less interested
in men than other women. Not as friendly, not as inviting. I wonder if
anyone has studied the rise of feminism and the rise of the gay
movement to see if there is a connection.
I think there is a connection because both women and gays are
discriminated against in part because of expected gender roles.  Kudos
to feminism for paving the way for gay rights.
On that point we agree, but that was not obvious from your statement
above. If I assumed something that you did not mean, I apologize.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-12-03 00:07:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by d***@gmail.com
Yes, Islander, I think that feminists and lesbians are less interested
in men than other women. Not as friendly, not as inviting. I wonder if
anyone has studied the rise of feminism and the rise of the gay
movement to see if there is a connection.
I think there is a connection because both women and gays are
discriminated against in part because of expected gender roles.  Kudos
to feminism for paving the way for gay rights.
Of course, where I live, I'm in the majority! I don't discriminate
against heterosexuals though. The people in the flat next to mine
on the same floor are heterosexual and have two kids now, not
much more than a year apart (Yikes!), Before that though, they
had a cat, who has since died, and I looked in on their cat and
fed her when they were away.
Post by islander
On that point we agree, but that was not obvious from your statement
above. If I assumed something that you did not mean, I apologize.
islander
2017-12-02 16:20:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Yes, Islander, I think that feminists and lesbians are less interested in men than other women. Not as friendly, not as inviting. I wonder if anyone has studied the rise of feminism and the rise of the gay movement to see if there is a connection.
Eugene FitzAubrey
Not likely since homosexuality is not produced by the social
environment. As nearly as we can tell, it is a random variable in the
genes. It has nothing to do with the opposite sex. What you are
probably seeing is more men (and women) coming out of the closet. There
are good reasons for that and they have to do with increased emphasis on
human rights. That is a good thing!
Gary
2017-12-02 18:27:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by d***@gmail.com
Yes, Islander, I think that feminists and lesbians are less interested in men than other women. Not as friendly, not as inviting. I wonder if anyone has studied the rise of feminism and the rise of the gay movement to see if there is a connection.
Eugene FitzAubrey
Not likely since homosexuality is not produced by the social
environment. As nearly as we can tell, it is a random variable in the
genes.
Sexual preferences are not caused by genes. They are cause by childhood fantasies that
excite the child when he is in a developing age. Some male (another boy or an adult
male) touches his little thing -- and he never forgets the thrill. And that thrill
leads him to want a man ! (even though he forgets the experience)
Post by islander
It has nothing to do with the opposite sex. What you are
probably seeing is more men (and women) coming out of the closet. There
are good reasons for that and they have to do with increased emphasis on
human rights. That is a good thing!
Is coming out of the closet good ? Is other conduct that weakens and destroys cultural
tradition good ? What is more important ? And strong culture or a few happy gays ?

The same thing that causes homosexuality is what causes other perversions. Like wife
swapping, sadism and masochism. It's what excites the young and developing mind.
As the twig is bent ....... A lot of little twigs have been bent (twisted and yanked)
in gay communities.
islander
2017-12-02 18:59:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by islander
Post by d***@gmail.com
Yes, Islander, I think that feminists and lesbians are less interested in men than other women. Not as friendly, not as inviting. I wonder if anyone has studied the rise of feminism and the rise of the gay movement to see if there is a connection.
Eugene FitzAubrey
Not likely since homosexuality is not produced by the social
environment. As nearly as we can tell, it is a random variable in the
genes.
Sexual preferences are not caused by genes. They are cause by childhood fantasies that
excite the child when he is in a developing age. Some male (another boy or an adult
male) touches his little thing -- and he never forgets the thrill. And that thrill
leads him to want a man ! (even though he forgets the experience)
Post by islander
It has nothing to do with the opposite sex. What you are
probably seeing is more men (and women) coming out of the closet. There
are good reasons for that and they have to do with increased emphasis on
human rights. That is a good thing!
Is coming out of the closet good ? Is other conduct that weakens and destroys cultural
tradition good ? What is more important ? And strong culture or a few happy gays ?
The same thing that causes homosexuality is what causes other perversions. Like wife
swapping, sadism and masochism. It's what excites the young and developing mind.
As the twig is bent ....... A lot of little twigs have been bent (twisted and yanked)
in gay communities.
And you know this how?
Gary
2017-12-02 20:36:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by Gary
Post by islander
Post by d***@gmail.com
Yes, Islander, I think that feminists and lesbians are less interested in men than other women. Not as friendly, not as inviting. I wonder if anyone has studied the rise of feminism and the rise of the gay movement to see if there is a connection.
Eugene FitzAubrey
Not likely since homosexuality is not produced by the social
environment. As nearly as we can tell, it is a random variable in the
genes.
Sexual preferences are not caused by genes. They are cause by childhood fantasies that
excite the child when he is in a developing age. Some male (another boy or an adult
male) touches his little thing -- and he never forgets the thrill. And that thrill
leads him to want a man ! (even though he forgets the experience)
Post by islander
It has nothing to do with the opposite sex. What you are
probably seeing is more men (and women) coming out of the closet. There
are good reasons for that and they have to do with increased emphasis on
human rights. That is a good thing!
Is coming out of the closet good ? Is other conduct that weakens and destroys cultural
tradition good ? What is more important ? And strong culture or a few happy gays ?
The same thing that causes homosexuality is what causes other perversions. Like wife
swapping, sadism and masochism. It's what excites the young and developing mind.
As the twig is bent ....... A lot of little twigs have been bent (twisted and yanked)
in gay communities.
And you know this how?
By giving the subject a lot of serious thought -- and by doing a lot of reading on the
subject.
islander
2017-12-03 01:24:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by islander
Post by Gary
Post by islander
Post by d***@gmail.com
Yes, Islander, I think that feminists and lesbians are less interested in men than other women. Not as friendly, not as inviting. I wonder if anyone has studied the rise of feminism and the rise of the gay movement to see if there is a connection.
Eugene FitzAubrey
Not likely since homosexuality is not produced by the social
environment. As nearly as we can tell, it is a random variable in the
genes.
Sexual preferences are not caused by genes. They are cause by childhood fantasies that
excite the child when he is in a developing age. Some male (another boy or an adult
male) touches his little thing -- and he never forgets the thrill. And that thrill
leads him to want a man ! (even though he forgets the experience)
Post by islander
It has nothing to do with the opposite sex. What you are
probably seeing is more men (and women) coming out of the closet. There
are good reasons for that and they have to do with increased emphasis on
human rights. That is a good thing!
Is coming out of the closet good ? Is other conduct that weakens and destroys cultural
tradition good ? What is more important ? And strong culture or a few happy gays ?
The same thing that causes homosexuality is what causes other perversions. Like wife
swapping, sadism and masochism. It's what excites the young and developing mind.
As the twig is bent ....... A lot of little twigs have been bent (twisted and yanked)
in gay communities.
And you know this how?
By giving the subject a lot of serious thought -- and by doing a lot of reading on the
subject.
Cite?
Gary
2017-12-03 17:24:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by islander
Post by Gary
Post by islander
Post by d***@gmail.com
Yes, Islander, I think that feminists and lesbians are less interested in men than other women. Not as friendly, not as inviting. I wonder if anyone has studied the rise of feminism and the rise of the gay movement to see if there is a connection.
Eugene FitzAubrey
Not likely since homosexuality is not produced by the social
environment. As nearly as we can tell, it is a random variable in the
genes.
Sexual preferences are not caused by genes. They are cause by childhood fantasies that
excite the child when he is in a developing age. Some male (another boy or an adult
male) touches his little thing -- and he never forgets the thrill. And that thrill
leads him to want a man ! (even though he forgets the experience)
Post by islander
It has nothing to do with the opposite sex. What you are
probably seeing is more men (and women) coming out of the closet. There
are good reasons for that and they have to do with increased emphasis on
human rights. That is a good thing!
Is coming out of the closet good ? Is other conduct that weakens and destroys cultural
tradition good ? What is more important ? And strong culture or a few happy gays ?
The same thing that causes homosexuality is what causes other perversions. Like wife
swapping, sadism and masochism. It's what excites the young and developing mind.
As the twig is bent ....... A lot of little twigs have been bent (twisted and yanked)
in gay communities.
And you know this how?
By giving the subject a lot of serious thought -- and by doing a lot of reading on the
subject.
Cite?
My local library. The internet. Encyclopedia Britannica. A few books on abnormal
psychology.

I'll give one example out of an adult lifetime of study. This sort of condenses it --:

A. Homosexuality as abnormal

There have been numerous theories identifying homosexuality as
abnormal. Some researchers (eg: Bieber, 1976) claim to have
identified abnormal patterns of upbringing and relationships that
seem to lead to homosexuality. Homosexuality is thus said to be
the result of disturbed early experiences, including poor family
life (eg: for men - extremely poor father-son relationships and an
overly involved mother) and poor relationships with same-sex peers.
Psychoanalytic theorists suggest that these experiences caused the
homosexual to be afraid of heterosexuality, so they become
homosexual as a means of denying their fear of same-sex peers.
islander
2017-12-04 15:55:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by Gary
Post by islander
Post by Gary
Post by islander
Post by d***@gmail.com
Yes, Islander, I think that feminists and lesbians are less interested in men than other women. Not as friendly, not as inviting. I wonder if anyone has studied the rise of feminism and the rise of the gay movement to see if there is a connection.
Eugene FitzAubrey
Not likely since homosexuality is not produced by the social
environment. As nearly as we can tell, it is a random variable in the
genes.
Sexual preferences are not caused by genes. They are cause by childhood fantasies that
excite the child when he is in a developing age. Some male (another boy or an adult
male) touches his little thing -- and he never forgets the thrill. And that thrill
leads him to want a man ! (even though he forgets the experience)
Post by islander
It has nothing to do with the opposite sex. What you are
probably seeing is more men (and women) coming out of the closet. There
are good reasons for that and they have to do with increased emphasis on
human rights. That is a good thing!
Is coming out of the closet good ? Is other conduct that weakens and destroys cultural
tradition good ? What is more important ? And strong culture or a few happy gays ?
The same thing that causes homosexuality is what causes other perversions. Like wife
swapping, sadism and masochism. It's what excites the young and developing mind.
As the twig is bent ....... A lot of little twigs have been bent (twisted and yanked)
in gay communities.
And you know this how?
By giving the subject a lot of serious thought -- and by doing a lot of reading on the
subject.
Cite?
My local library. The internet. Encyclopedia Britannica. A few books on abnormal
psychology.
A. Homosexuality as abnormal
There have been numerous theories identifying homosexuality as
abnormal. Some researchers (eg: Bieber, 1976) claim to have
identified abnormal patterns of upbringing and relationships that
seem to lead to homosexuality. Homosexuality is thus said to be
the result of disturbed early experiences, including poor family
life (eg: for men - extremely poor father-son relationships and an
overly involved mother) and poor relationships with same-sex peers.
Psychoanalytic theorists suggest that these experiences caused the
homosexual to be afraid of heterosexuality, so they become
homosexual as a means of denying their fear of same-sex peers.
We have learned a great deal since 1976!
Gary
2017-12-04 19:42:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by Gary
Post by Gary
By giving the subject a lot of serious thought -- and by doing a lot of reading on the
subject.
Cite?
My local library. The internet. Encyclopedia Britannica. A few books on abnormal
psychology.
A. Homosexuality as abnormal
There have been numerous theories identifying homosexuality as
abnormal. Some researchers (eg: Bieber, 1976) claim to have
identified abnormal patterns of upbringing and relationships that
seem to lead to homosexuality. Homosexuality is thus said to be
the result of disturbed early experiences, including poor family
life (eg: for men - extremely poor father-son relationships and an
overly involved mother) and poor relationships with same-sex peers.
Psychoanalytic theorists suggest that these experiences caused the
homosexual to be afraid of heterosexuality, so they become
homosexual as a means of denying their fear of same-sex peers.
We have learned a great deal since 1976!
In the area of technology -- we have learned a lot. But in the area of human behavior
-- if we lay aside our PC bs -- we are (reluctantly) coming to learn what people thought
100 years ago is right.
d***@gmail.com
2017-12-02 19:29:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Gary, old lad, you have suggested that homosexual behavior weakens and destroys traditional society. I agree. It is part of the 'counter culture', which is self explanatory. The gay movement was started by Harry Hay, who belonged to the Communist Party of the USA (CPUSA) in Hollywood. The Party leaders approved of Harry's plan, but they made him leave the Party because they didn't want the Communist Party to be associated with homosexuality.

Eugene FitzAubrey
Gary
2017-12-02 20:36:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Gary, old lad, you have suggested that homosexual behavior weakens and
destroys traditional society. I agree. It is part of the 'counter culture', which
is self explanatory.
I agree. Anytime a perverted activity becomes "acceptable" -- it weakens and destroys
the culture that accepts them. That's what happened to Rome.
Post by d***@gmail.com
The gay movement was started by Harry Hay, who belonged to the Communist
Party of the USA (CPUSA) in Hollywood.
I didn't know that.
Post by d***@gmail.com
The Party leaders approved of Harry's plan, but they made him leave the Party
because they didn't want the Communist Party to be associated with homosexuality.
Sounds like the Communist have better judgement than us capitalists.

Let me add --- people can practice any of a variety of perverted activities without
harming anything. It is when the non-practicing people begin to accept such things --
that bring the downfall.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Eugene FitzAubrey
islander
2017-12-03 01:42:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Gary, old lad, you have suggested that homosexual behavior weakens and destroys traditional society. I agree. It is part of the 'counter culture', which is self explanatory. The gay movement was started by Harry Hay, who belonged to the Communist Party of the USA (CPUSA) in Hollywood. The Party leaders approved of Harry's plan, but they made him leave the Party because they didn't want the Communist Party to be associated with homosexuality.
Eugene FitzAubrey
Harry Hay was a human rights activist who fought for workers, Indians,
against racism and for gay rights. He had the courage to stand up for
what he believed at a time when to do so was not acceptable in polite
society. Yes, he joined the Communist Party in the '30s because of
their support of labor. A lot of people did. He had a problem with the
CPUSA because of their discrimination against homosexuals and tended to
be more closely aligned with the political theory of Marxism.

The culture that Harry Hay was opposed to was pretty ugly and if what he
was working to counter was the ugliness of that culture, he is to be
admired. We are all better off for his efforts.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-12-03 03:57:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by d***@gmail.com
Gary, old lad, you have suggested that homosexual behavior weakens and destroys traditional society. I agree. It is part of the 'counter culture', which is self explanatory. The gay movement was started by Harry Hay, who belonged to the Communist Party of the USA (CPUSA) in Hollywood. The Party leaders approved of Harry's plan, but they made him leave the Party because they didn't want the Communist Party to be associated with homosexuality.
Eugene FitzAubrey
Harry Hay was a human rights activist who fought for workers, Indians,
against racism and for gay rights. He had the courage to stand up for
what he believed at a time when to do so was not acceptable in polite
society. Yes, he joined the Communist Party in the '30s because of
their support of labor. A lot of people did. He had a problem with the
CPUSA because of their discrimination against homosexuals and tended to
be more closely aligned with the political theory of Marxism.
The culture that Harry Hay was opposed to was pretty ugly and if what he
was working to counter was the ugliness of that culture, he is to be
admired. We are all better off for his efforts.
I'm so glad I had the sense to quit IBM and move
to California when I was 23. If not, I'd be stuck in
Gary's and dulloldboy's "traditional" society, which
would be a fate worse than death.
Gary
2017-12-03 12:38:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by d***@gmail.com
Gary, old lad, you have suggested that homosexual behavior weakens and destroys traditional society. I agree. It is part of the 'counter culture', which is self explanatory. The gay movement was started by Harry Hay, who belonged to the Communist Party of the USA (CPUSA) in Hollywood. The Party leaders approved of Harry's plan, but they made him leave the Party because they didn't want the Communist Party to be associated with homosexuality.
Eugene FitzAubrey
Harry Hay was a human rights activist who fought for workers, Indians,
against racism and for gay rights. He had the courage to stand up for
what he believed at a time when to do so was not acceptable in polite
society. Yes, he joined the Communist Party in the '30s because of
their support of labor. A lot of people did. He had a problem with the
CPUSA because of their discrimination against homosexuals and tended to
be more closely aligned with the political theory of Marxism.
The culture that Harry Hay was opposed to was pretty ugly and if what he
was working to counter was the ugliness of that culture, he is to be
admired. We are all better off for his efforts.
I'm so glad I had the sense to quit IBM and move
to California when I was 23. If not, I'd be stuck in
Gary's and dulloldboy's "traditional" society, which
would be a fate worse than death.
On behalf of the normal people of America -- I want to thank you for moving to San
Francisco. It sure helps our property values. I've always said you should have moved
to Atlanta. It is even worse --- er, I mean "better" than Frisco. 85% black and 10%
gay. You'd love it !
d***@gmail.com
2017-12-03 15:02:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Rumple makes reference to 'traditional' society with considerable disdain. Rumple has taken refuge in San Fransisco, which has become differently traditioned since the end of The War. But since I have no intention of being differently traditioned, I have moved as far away from San Francisco as I could get.

Here in Miami (but not in Miami Beach) there is much less struggle with reality. There must be some reason why traditional societies have persisted for so long. I chalk it up, in part at least, to the biological imperative. The science of biology describes the physical boundaries within which we must live if our society is to survive.

Eugene FitzAubrey
islander
2017-12-04 02:05:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Rumple makes reference to 'traditional' society with considerable disdain. Rumple has taken refuge in San Fransisco, which has become differently traditioned since the end of The War. But since I have no intention of being differently traditioned, I have moved as far away from San Francisco as I could get.
Here in Miami (but not in Miami Beach) there is much less struggle with reality. There must be some reason why traditional societies have persisted for so long. I chalk it up, in part at least, to the biological imperative. The science of biology describes the physical boundaries within which we must live if our society is to survive.
Eugene FitzAubrey
I caulk it up the the inherent bigotry in religion.
islander
2017-12-03 15:32:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by d***@gmail.com
Gary, old lad, you have suggested that homosexual behavior weakens and destroys traditional society. I agree. It is part of the 'counter culture', which is self explanatory. The gay movement was started by Harry Hay, who belonged to the Communist Party of the USA (CPUSA) in Hollywood. The Party leaders approved of Harry's plan, but they made him leave the Party because they didn't want the Communist Party to be associated with homosexuality.
Eugene FitzAubrey
Harry Hay was a human rights activist who fought for workers, Indians,
against racism and for gay rights. He had the courage to stand up for
what he believed at a time when to do so was not acceptable in polite
society. Yes, he joined the Communist Party in the '30s because of
their support of labor. A lot of people did. He had a problem with the
CPUSA because of their discrimination against homosexuals and tended to
be more closely aligned with the political theory of Marxism.
The culture that Harry Hay was opposed to was pretty ugly and if what he
was working to counter was the ugliness of that culture, he is to be
admired. We are all better off for his efforts.
I'm so glad I had the sense to quit IBM and move
to California when I was 23. If not, I'd be stuck in
Gary's and dulloldboy's "traditional" society, which
would be a fate worse than death.
On behalf of the normal people of America -- I want to thank you for moving to San
Francisco. It sure helps our property values. I've always said you should have moved
to Atlanta. It is even worse --- er, I mean "better" than Frisco. 85% black and 10%
gay. You'd love it !
Gary, you might want to work on your attitude. You will soon be
dependent upon those very same people who you discriminate against now.
I'll quote an old saying that I first heard in the south, "What goes
around comes around!"
Gary
2017-12-03 16:36:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by d***@gmail.com
Gary, old lad, you have suggested that homosexual behavior weakens and destroys traditional society. I agree. It is part of the 'counter culture', which is self explanatory. The gay movement was started by Harry Hay, who belonged to the Communist Party of the USA (CPUSA) in Hollywood. The Party leaders approved of Harry's plan, but they made him leave the Party because they didn't want the Communist Party to be associated with homosexuality.
Eugene FitzAubrey
Harry Hay was a human rights activist who fought for workers, Indians,
against racism and for gay rights. He had the courage to stand up for
what he believed at a time when to do so was not acceptable in polite
society. Yes, he joined the Communist Party in the '30s because of
their support of labor. A lot of people did. He had a problem with the
CPUSA because of their discrimination against homosexuals and tended to
be more closely aligned with the political theory of Marxism.
The culture that Harry Hay was opposed to was pretty ugly and if what he
was working to counter was the ugliness of that culture, he is to be
admired. We are all better off for his efforts.
I'm so glad I had the sense to quit IBM and move
to California when I was 23. If not, I'd be stuck in
Gary's and dulloldboy's "traditional" society, which
would be a fate worse than death.
On behalf of the normal people of America -- I want to thank you for moving to San
Francisco. It sure helps our property values. I've always said you should have moved
to Atlanta. It is even worse --- er, I mean "better" than Frisco. 85% black and 10%
gay. You'd love it !
Gary, you might want to work on your attitude. You will soon be
dependent upon those very same people who you discriminate against now.
I'll quote an old saying that I first heard in the south, "What goes
around comes around!"
I've worked with them all my life. And got along very well with most. I wonder though
--- do gays work in senior facilities ? I suppose that is where you figure I will be
dependent on them. And ... I have no doubt you are right.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-12-03 18:10:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
<snip>
Post by islander
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
I'm so glad I had the sense to quit IBM and move
to California when I was 23. If not, I'd be stuck in
Gary's and dulloldboy's "traditional" society, which
would be a fate worse than death.
On behalf of the normal people of America -- I want to thank you for moving to San
Francisco. It sure helps our property values. I've always said you should have moved
to Atlanta. It is even worse --- er, I mean "better" than Frisco. 85% black and 10%
gay. You'd love it !
Gary, you might want to work on your attitude. You will soon be
dependent upon those very same people who you discriminate against now.
I'll quote an old saying that I first heard in the south, "What goes
around comes around!"
Gary seems to think he's "normal".
rumpelstiltskin
2017-12-04 01:56:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by islander
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
I'm so glad I had the sense to quit IBM and move
to California when I was 23. If not, I'd be stuck in
Gary's and dulloldboy's "traditional" society, which
would be a fate worse than death.
On behalf of the normal people of America -- I want to thank you for moving to San
Francisco. It sure helps our property values. I've always said you should have moved
to Atlanta. It is even worse --- er, I mean "better" than Frisco. 85% black and 10%
gay. You'd love it !
Gary, you might want to work on your attitude. You will soon be
dependent upon those very same people who you discriminate against now.
I'll quote an old saying that I first heard in the south, "What goes
around comes around!"
Gary seems to think he's "normal".
Here's "Frisco" - it even has its own coat-of-arms:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisco,_Texas
The mayor's name takes me aback a bit, consisting
of the American version of my first name with the
last name of Dr. Evil: "Jeff Cheney".

Like many San Franciscans, I'm pretty uppity
about people calling the city "Frisco" and tend to
regard such people as street trash, even though
that nickname has a long history. The name
"San Francisco" is too long though, so in this
newsgroup and elsewhere I've taken to calling
the city "San Fran".

There are a bunch of other "Frisco"s,
including two ghost-towns:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisco
islander
2017-12-04 14:56:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by islander
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
I'm so glad I had the sense to quit IBM and move
to California when I was 23. If not, I'd be stuck in
Gary's and dulloldboy's "traditional" society, which
would be a fate worse than death.
On behalf of the normal people of America -- I want to thank you for moving to San
Francisco. It sure helps our property values. I've always said you should have moved
to Atlanta. It is even worse --- er, I mean "better" than Frisco. 85% black and 10%
gay. You'd love it !
Gary, you might want to work on your attitude. You will soon be
dependent upon those very same people who you discriminate against now.
I'll quote an old saying that I first heard in the south, "What goes
around comes around!"
Gary seems to think he's "normal".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisco,_Texas
The mayor's name takes me aback a bit, consisting
of the American version of my first name with the
last name of Dr. Evil: "Jeff Cheney".
Like many San Franciscans, I'm pretty uppity
about people calling the city "Frisco" and tend to
regard such people as street trash, even though
that nickname has a long history. The name
"San Francisco" is too long though, so in this
newsgroup and elsewhere I've taken to calling
the city "San Fran".
There are a bunch of other "Frisco"s,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisco
I agree that shortening San Francisco to "Frisco" is pejorative. Those
who love that city are likely to take offense and that offense is likely
to have been made intentionally.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-12-04 15:40:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 06:56:09 -0800, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
<snip>
Post by islander
I agree that shortening San Francisco to "Frisco" is pejorative. Those
who love that city are likely to take offense and that offense is likely
to have been made intentionally.
I'm not offended, I just regard them as street trash.

If Christian fundamentalists, and people who are like
them except for the religion, are calling San Francisco
"Frisco", let them say anything they want as long as it
will make them less likely to move here. Now if we
could just keep the dot-commers from moving here
too, damaging the city from the opposite direction.
islander
2017-12-04 02:04:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by islander
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
I'm so glad I had the sense to quit IBM and move
to California when I was 23. If not, I'd be stuck in
Gary's and dulloldboy's "traditional" society, which
would be a fate worse than death.
On behalf of the normal people of America -- I want to thank you for moving to San
Francisco. It sure helps our property values. I've always said you should have moved
to Atlanta. It is even worse --- er, I mean "better" than Frisco. 85% black and 10%
gay. You'd love it !
Gary, you might want to work on your attitude. You will soon be
dependent upon those very same people who you discriminate against now.
I'll quote an old saying that I first heard in the south, "What goes
around comes around!"
Gary seems to think he's "normal".
Normal is relative. Perhaps in the part of Georgia where he lives and
among the people he associates with he is considered normal. Otherwise,
not so much.
Gary
2017-12-04 17:32:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by islander
Post by Gary
Post by rumpelstiltskin
I'm so glad I had the sense to quit IBM and move
to California when I was 23. If not, I'd be stuck in
Gary's and dulloldboy's "traditional" society, which
would be a fate worse than death.
On behalf of the normal people of America -- I want to thank you for moving to San
Francisco. It sure helps our property values. I've always said you should have moved
to Atlanta. It is even worse --- er, I mean "better" than Frisco. 85% black and 10%
gay. You'd love it !
Gary, you might want to work on your attitude. You will soon be
dependent upon those very same people who you discriminate against now.
I'll quote an old saying that I first heard in the south, "What goes
around comes around!"
Gary seems to think he's "normal".
Normal is relative. Perhaps in the part of Georgia where he lives and
among the people he associates with he is considered normal. Otherwise,
not so much.
This from a guy who was educated in Georgia. And then left the South -- so he could
show off his brilliance among people with lower IQs and less understanding of minorities.
(lower cultures) Me ? I stayed in Georgia because I like advanced cultures.
Unfortunately -- the younger generation has watched too much TV. They are becoming just
as stupid as non-southerners,
islander
2017-12-03 15:17:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by d***@gmail.com
Gary, old lad, you have suggested that homosexual behavior weakens and destroys traditional society. I agree. It is part of the 'counter culture', which is self explanatory. The gay movement was started by Harry Hay, who belonged to the Communist Party of the USA (CPUSA) in Hollywood. The Party leaders approved of Harry's plan, but they made him leave the Party because they didn't want the Communist Party to be associated with homosexuality.
Eugene FitzAubrey
Harry Hay was a human rights activist who fought for workers, Indians,
against racism and for gay rights. He had the courage to stand up for
what he believed at a time when to do so was not acceptable in polite
society. Yes, he joined the Communist Party in the '30s because of
their support of labor. A lot of people did. He had a problem with the
CPUSA because of their discrimination against homosexuals and tended to
be more closely aligned with the political theory of Marxism.
The culture that Harry Hay was opposed to was pretty ugly and if what he
was working to counter was the ugliness of that culture, he is to be
admired. We are all better off for his efforts.
I'm so glad I had the sense to quit IBM and move
to California when I was 23. If not, I'd be stuck in
Gary's and dulloldboy's "traditional" society, which
would be a fate worse than death.
I can only imagine what you and so many others went through and are
still going through in so many ways. I'm afraid that it is going to get
worse with Trump and a Republican Congress attempting to overturn what
Obama accomplished. If we have learned nothing else, we should have
learned that "shaking things up" in government can have very bad
consequences.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-12-03 18:10:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by d***@gmail.com
Gary, old lad, you have suggested that homosexual behavior weakens and destroys traditional society. I agree. It is part of the 'counter culture', which is self explanatory. The gay movement was started by Harry Hay, who belonged to the Communist Party of the USA (CPUSA) in Hollywood. The Party leaders approved of Harry's plan, but they made him leave the Party because they didn't want the Communist Party to be associated with homosexuality.
Eugene FitzAubrey
Harry Hay was a human rights activist who fought for workers, Indians,
against racism and for gay rights. He had the courage to stand up for
what he believed at a time when to do so was not acceptable in polite
society. Yes, he joined the Communist Party in the '30s because of
their support of labor. A lot of people did. He had a problem with the
CPUSA because of their discrimination against homosexuals and tended to
be more closely aligned with the political theory of Marxism.
The culture that Harry Hay was opposed to was pretty ugly and if what he
was working to counter was the ugliness of that culture, he is to be
admired. We are all better off for his efforts.
I'm so glad I had the sense to quit IBM and move
to California when I was 23. If not, I'd be stuck in
Gary's and dulloldboy's "traditional" society, which
would be a fate worse than death.
I can only imagine what you and so many others went through and are
still going through in so many ways. I'm afraid that it is going to get
worse with Trump and a Republican Congress attempting to overturn what
Obama accomplished. If we have learned nothing else, we should have
learned that "shaking things up" in government can have very bad
consequences.
Not shaking things up is bad when the
status quo is bad.
d***@gmail.com
2017-12-03 18:52:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Hey, Gary, they want you to have an attitudinal adjustment. Watch out for electroshock therapy. They might send you to a mental hospital. That's the way dissenters were handled in the USSR. In fact, the father of a friend from the UkrSSR was a psychiatrist whose specialty was electroshock therapy. Better pretend to think the way you're supposed to.

Eugene FitzAubrey
d***@gmail.com
2017-12-03 18:52:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Hey, Gary, they want you to have an attitudinal adjustment. Watch out for electroshock therapy. They might send you to a mental hospital. That's the way dissenters were handled in the USSR. In fact, the father of a friend from the UkrSSR was a psychiatrist whose specialty was electroshock therapy. Better pretend to think the way you're supposed to.

Eugene FitzAubrey
d***@gmail.com
2017-12-03 15:15:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Islander seems to admire Harry Hay, the Communist who created the Gay Liberation Front. Hay, who died in San Francisco, supported NAMBLA, the North American Man Boy Love Association. Is pedophilia next on the progressive agenda?

Eugene FitzAubrey
El Castor
2017-12-02 01:10:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 12:37:25 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 03:36:35 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 02:23:11 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
https://scontent-dft4-3.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/24176779_10215255909179954_6736514869540157171_n.jpg?oh=100f7dba40e687afcd83043d5d3a7627&oe=5AD0CBA4
If a genetic marker for LGBTQ can be identified, would you have any
objection to abortion?
Why would one want to abort in this case?
You didn't answer the question ...
If a genetic marker for LGBTQ can be identified, would you have any
objection to abortion??????
I see no such reply to such a question but the one I gave!
How should I know? There could be many reasons. Perhaps the pregnant
woman does not like Gays?

Are you implying that eligibility for abortion should hinge on motive?
wolfbat359
2017-12-02 01:21:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 12:37:25 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 03:36:35 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 02:23:11 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
https://scontent-dft4-3.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/24176779_10215255909179954_6736514869540157171_n.jpg?oh=100f7dba40e687afcd83043d5d3a7627&oe=5AD0CBA4
If a genetic marker for LGBTQ can be identified, would you have any
objection to abortion?
Why would one want to abort in this case?
You didn't answer the question ...
If a genetic marker for LGBTQ can be identified, would you have any
objection to abortion??????
I see no such reply to such a question but the one I gave!
How should I know? There could be many reasons. Perhaps the pregnant
woman does not like Gays?
Are you implying that eligibility for abortion should hinge on motive?
How did you get that?
El Castor
2017-12-02 09:14:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 17:21:49 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 12:37:25 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
Post by El Castor
On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 03:36:35 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 02:23:11 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
https://scontent-dft4-3.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/24176779_10215255909179954_6736514869540157171_n.jpg?oh=100f7dba40e687afcd83043d5d3a7627&oe=5AD0CBA4
If a genetic marker for LGBTQ can be identified, would you have any
objection to abortion?
Why would one want to abort in this case?
You didn't answer the question ...
If a genetic marker for LGBTQ can be identified, would you have any
objection to abortion??????
I see no such reply to such a question but the one I gave!
How should I know? There could be many reasons. Perhaps the pregnant
woman does not like Gays?
Are you implying that eligibility for abortion should hinge on motive?
How did you get that?
On second thought, go to Hell.
d***@gmail.com
2017-12-07 13:06:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
While you gentlemem consider the hypothetical abortion of a hypothetical LGBTQ fetus, I feel duty bound to advise you that the term LGBTQ is passé; today we have progressed to LGBTQIA, which refers to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer/Questioning, Intersex, and Allies. I hope I've gotten the letters in the right order.

Eugene FitzAubrey
d***@gmail.com
2017-12-07 13:13:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Make that 'gentleMEN', not 'gentleMEM' (as in 'memsahib'). It was an innocent error.

Eugene FitzAubrey
rumpelstiltskin
2017-12-01 13:10:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 02:23:11 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
https://scontent-dft4-3.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/24176779_10215255909179954_6736514869540157171_n.jpg?oh=100f7dba40e687afcd83043d5d3a7627&oe=5AD0CBA4
If a genetic marker for bigotry can be identified, would you
have any objection to abortion?

Sorry about that, but I know that El Castor's all-too-common
right-wing lousiness, which he perhaps regards as "wit", was
really directed at me, and you were in the middle. I set him
off, I guess, by pointing out that an unbelievably stupid
argument he had tried to make recently was even flakier
than most of his worst - so flaky that it's hard to believe that
anybody, even a dumbass who kills people to steal their
sneakers, would actually try to make it.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-12-01 15:14:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 02:23:11 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
https://scontent-dft4-3.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/24176779_10215255909179954_6736514869540157171_n.jpg?oh=100f7dba40e687afcd83043d5d3a7627&oe=5AD0CBA4
If a genetic marker for bigotry can be identified, would you
have any objection to abortion?
Sorry about that, but I know that El Castor's all-too-common
right-wing lousiness, which he perhaps regards as "wit", was
really directed at me, and you were in the middle. I set him
off, I guess, by pointing out that an unbelievably stupid
argument he had tried to make recently was even flakier
than most of his worst - so flaky that it's hard to believe that
anybody, even a dumbass who kills people to steal their
sneakers, would actually try to make it.
What Jeff was trying to establish is that abortion rights supporters are
hypocrites because they won't allow women certain abortions. I don't
think that is flaky argument, but it nonetheless fails because we
wouldn't outlaw such abortions, even though we would attempt to apply
public pressure to make them undesirable.

To the contrary, a slew of laws have been passed by Republicans that
outlaw abortions on the basis of gender, race or disability as a back
door to outlawing abortions in general. These tactics, like requiring
ultrasounds are the only strategy pro-lifers have given Roe.

https://tinyurl.com/y94nyavp
d***@gmail.com
2017-12-01 16:33:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
The idea of a 'gay gene' is illogical. A strict male homosexual would not engage in heterosexual behavior, and thus he could not pass his gay gene on to children he could not have.

Eugene FitzAubrey
islander
2017-12-01 19:41:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
The idea of a 'gay gene' is illogical. A strict male homosexual would not engage in heterosexual behavior, and thus he could not pass his gay gene on to children he could not have.
Eugene FitzAubrey
I doubt that there is a "gay gene" but there are many ways that it could
be regressive and passed through heterosexual behavior by genetic
relatives. Alternatively, being homosexual is not an all-or-nothing
thing. There are degrees including many people who are bisexual. Just
because someone is homosexual does not mean that he or she would not or
could not engage in heterosexual intercourse. They are gay, not dead!
rumpelstiltskin
2017-12-01 20:12:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by d***@gmail.com
The idea of a 'gay gene' is illogical. A strict male homosexual would not engage in heterosexual behavior, and thus he could not pass his gay gene on to children he could not have.
Eugene FitzAubrey
I doubt that there is a "gay gene" but there are many ways that it could
be regressive and passed through heterosexual behavior by genetic
relatives. Alternatively, being homosexual is not an all-or-nothing
thing. There are degrees including many people who are bisexual. Just
because someone is homosexual does not mean that he or she would not or
could not engage in heterosexual intercourse. They are gay, not dead!
What's so great about heterosexuality? It is the
only way of continuing the species, but from a
personal standpoint, there are a lot of drawbacks.
Guys understand each other immediately. When
a guy tries to date a girl, he has to walk on his
eyelashes because of the danger of setting her
off with some inadvertent remark.
islander
2017-12-02 01:41:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by d***@gmail.com
The idea of a 'gay gene' is illogical. A strict male homosexual would not engage in heterosexual behavior, and thus he could not pass his gay gene on to children he could not have.
Eugene FitzAubrey
I doubt that there is a "gay gene" but there are many ways that it could
be regressive and passed through heterosexual behavior by genetic
relatives. Alternatively, being homosexual is not an all-or-nothing
thing. There are degrees including many people who are bisexual. Just
because someone is homosexual does not mean that he or she would not or
could not engage in heterosexual intercourse. They are gay, not dead!
What's so great about heterosexuality? It is the
only way of continuing the species, but from a
personal standpoint, there are a lot of drawbacks.
Guys understand each other immediately. When
a guy tries to date a girl, he has to walk on his
eyelashes because of the danger of setting her
off with some inadvertent remark.
<chuckle> It is a wonder the species has survived!
El Castor
2017-12-02 09:31:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by d***@gmail.com
The idea of a 'gay gene' is illogical. A strict male homosexual would not engage in heterosexual behavior, and thus he could not pass his gay gene on to children he could not have.
Eugene FitzAubrey
I doubt that there is a "gay gene" but there are many ways that it could
be regressive and passed through heterosexual behavior by genetic
relatives. Alternatively, being homosexual is not an all-or-nothing
thing. There are degrees including many people who are bisexual. Just
because someone is homosexual does not mean that he or she would not or
could not engage in heterosexual intercourse. They are gay, not dead!
What's so great about heterosexuality? It is the
only way of continuing the species, but from a
personal standpoint, there are a lot of drawbacks.
Guys understand each other immediately. When
a guy tries to date a girl, he has to walk on his
eyelashes because of the danger of setting her
off with some inadvertent remark.
<chuckle> It is a wonder the species has survived!
Indeed, and after the events of this year, men and boys will probably
be well advised to ask the ladies to sign a contract before they risk
buying them dinner or a ticket to the movies. A kiss will probably
require an agreement of permission witnessed by two unimpeachable
parties.
islander
2017-12-02 15:28:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by d***@gmail.com
The idea of a 'gay gene' is illogical. A strict male homosexual would not engage in heterosexual behavior, and thus he could not pass his gay gene on to children he could not have.
Eugene FitzAubrey
I doubt that there is a "gay gene" but there are many ways that it could
be regressive and passed through heterosexual behavior by genetic
relatives. Alternatively, being homosexual is not an all-or-nothing
thing. There are degrees including many people who are bisexual. Just
because someone is homosexual does not mean that he or she would not or
could not engage in heterosexual intercourse. They are gay, not dead!
What's so great about heterosexuality? It is the
only way of continuing the species, but from a
personal standpoint, there are a lot of drawbacks.
Guys understand each other immediately. When
a guy tries to date a girl, he has to walk on his
eyelashes because of the danger of setting her
off with some inadvertent remark.
<chuckle> It is a wonder the species has survived!
Indeed, and after the events of this year, men and boys will probably
be well advised to ask the ladies to sign a contract before they risk
buying them dinner or a ticket to the movies. A kiss will probably
require an agreement of permission witnessed by two unimpeachable
parties.
Sarcasm will get you nowhere with the ladies. How does your wife put up
with you?
El Castor
2017-12-02 21:21:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by d***@gmail.com
The idea of a 'gay gene' is illogical. A strict male homosexual would not engage in heterosexual behavior, and thus he could not pass his gay gene on to children he could not have.
Eugene FitzAubrey
I doubt that there is a "gay gene" but there are many ways that it could
be regressive and passed through heterosexual behavior by genetic
relatives. Alternatively, being homosexual is not an all-or-nothing
thing. There are degrees including many people who are bisexual. Just
because someone is homosexual does not mean that he or she would not or
could not engage in heterosexual intercourse. They are gay, not dead!
What's so great about heterosexuality? It is the
only way of continuing the species, but from a
personal standpoint, there are a lot of drawbacks.
Guys understand each other immediately. When
a guy tries to date a girl, he has to walk on his
eyelashes because of the danger of setting her
off with some inadvertent remark.
<chuckle> It is a wonder the species has survived!
Indeed, and after the events of this year, men and boys will probably
be well advised to ask the ladies to sign a contract before they risk
buying them dinner or a ticket to the movies. A kiss will probably
require an agreement of permission witnessed by two unimpeachable
parties.
Sarcasm will get you nowhere with the ladies. How does your wife put up
with you?
I don't know, but she has somehow managed for 41 years.
El Castor
2017-12-02 04:08:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by d***@gmail.com
The idea of a 'gay gene' is illogical. A strict male homosexual would not engage in heterosexual behavior, and thus he could not pass his gay gene on to children he could not have.
Eugene FitzAubrey
I doubt that there is a "gay gene" but there are many ways that it could
be regressive and passed through heterosexual behavior by genetic
relatives. Alternatively, being homosexual is not an all-or-nothing
thing. There are degrees including many people who are bisexual. Just
because someone is homosexual does not mean that he or she would not or
could not engage in heterosexual intercourse. They are gay, not dead!
I worked for a man (a real jerk) who was decidedly Gay. He was married
and had two teenage boys when he decided to exit the closet. His boys
reportedly did not take it well. He died of AIDS.
d***@gmail.com
2017-12-02 15:37:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Sr. Castor, a neighbor across the street in the Oakland Hills was a doctor at the Oakland Navy Hospital. His wife and mine were chums, and I thought his wife was a dish. The doctor left the Navy and went to work as an oncologist in San Francisco. Some years later our neighbors divorced, and he moved to San Francisco. Bad scene for the two children. The real shock for me came later when my wife learned that the doctor had died from AIDS.

Eugene FitzAubrey
islander
2017-12-02 18:54:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Sr. Castor, a neighbor across the street in the Oakland Hills was a doctor at the Oakland Navy Hospital. His wife and mine were chums, and I thought his wife was a dish. The doctor left the Navy and went to work as an oncologist in San Francisco. Some years later our neighbors divorced, and he moved to San Francisco. Bad scene for the two children. The real shock for me came later when my wife learned that the doctor had died from AIDS.
Eugene FitzAubrey
So what are you saying? That everything would have been wonderful if he
had continued denying his sexuality? All the heartache would have been
avoided if the husband lived in a world where his sexuality was accepted
instead of discriminated against. In the probable time frame that you
are talking about, he could not have even practiced his profession if he
came out of the closet.
d***@gmail.com
2017-12-02 20:26:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Islander, I'm saying I thought it tragic that my neighbor died of AIDS. A young family was destroyed, two children lost their father, a woman lost her husband, and the world lost an oncologist.

Eugene FitzAubrey
islander
2017-12-03 02:08:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Islander, I'm saying I thought it tragic that my neighbor died of AIDS. A young family was destroyed, two children lost their father, a woman lost her husband, and the world lost an oncologist.
Eugene FitzAubrey
It sounds like you are blaming him for all that. Do you think that he
had a choice regarding his sexuality?
El Castor
2017-12-03 10:25:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by d***@gmail.com
Islander, I'm saying I thought it tragic that my neighbor died of AIDS. A young family was destroyed, two children lost their father, a woman lost her husband, and the world lost an oncologist.
Eugene FitzAubrey
It sounds like you are blaming him for all that. Do you think that he
had a choice regarding his sexuality?
He had many choices. Condoms come to mind. At the height of the AIDS
epidemic, San Francisco had several large "bath houses" -- basically
places where Gay men hooked up with strangers and partook of orgies.
San Francisco tried to shut them down -- to save lives, and Gay
activists were outraged and fought tooth and nail against it. A Gay
co-worker explained to me that it was a civil rights issue. He died of
hepatitis (sexually transmitted) a few years later.

And to this day ... "Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) have been
rising among gay and bisexual men, with increases in syphilis being
seen across the country. In 2014, gay, bisexual, and other men who
have sex with men accounted for 83% of primary and secondary syphilis
cases where sex of sex partner was known in the United States. Gay,
bisexual, and other men who have sex with men often get other STDs,
including chlamydia and gonorrhea infections. HPV (Human
papillomavirus), the most common STD in the United States, is also a
concern for gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men. Some
types of HPV can cause genital and anal warts and some can lead to the
development of anal and oral cancers. Gay, bisexual, and other men who
have sex with men are 17 times more likely to get anal cancer than
heterosexual men. Men who are HIV-positive are even more likely than
those who do not have HIV to get anal cancer."
https://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/STD.htm
El Castor
2017-12-02 20:50:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Sr. Castor, a neighbor across the street in the Oakland Hills was a doctor at the Oakland Navy Hospital. His wife and mine were chums, and I thought his wife was a dish. The doctor left the Navy and went to work as an oncologist in San Francisco. Some years later our neighbors divorced, and he moved to San Francisco. Bad scene for the two children. The real shock for me came later when my wife learned that the doctor had died from AIDS.
Eugene FitzAubrey
A lot of parallels to the case I'm familiar with, also San Francisco,
but different Gay men. This guy managed a department of about 80. I
was the head of one of maybe six units in the department. When he
arrived, first thing he did was introduce himself around, hugging the
women as he went -- even pecking a few on the cheek. This did not go
over well with the ladies. Many women have an ability known as Gaydar.
They spotted him immediately, and began to refer to him as "The Gay
Feeler". He was rumored to have a thing going with a bald messenger
who often visited us. I had an opening, and he called me in and asked
me to hire baldy. I refused. He asked me why, and I declined to say.
He demanded to know why, and all I would say was that I would rather
not say. That really pissed him off, but I didn't care. Things got
worse between us, I got fed up, had friends 10 floors up, and a few
colorful stories later, I left. Good move as it turned out. He
eventually left his wife and sons, and a year later, died.

Working in San Francisco I got to know many Gay men, and a couple of
Gay women. Probably the best guy I ever worked for was Gay. He was
sacked by HR when they discovered that his partner, a San Francisco
regional manager, also worked for him. I was not the informer. (-8
El Castor
2017-12-01 20:23:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
The idea of a 'gay gene' is illogical. A strict male homosexual would not engage in heterosexual behavior, and thus he could not pass his gay gene on to children he could not have.
Eugene FitzAubrey
Nope. A Nobel prize winner can father a moron. The genes of parents
are a push in a direction, but are also a roll of the dice. It does
seem likely that in the not too distant future we will discover
genetic combinations (in the fetus) that will determine the eventual
development of brain structure, sexual orientation, and various
genetically defined attributes.
wolfbat359
2017-12-01 20:36:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
The idea of a 'gay gene' is illogical. A strict male homosexual would not engage in heterosexual behavior, and thus he could not pass his gay gene on to children he could not have.
Eugene FitzAubrey
You would be surprised at how many have been married!
Emily
2017-12-02 01:35:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 12:36:16 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
Post by d***@gmail.com
The idea of a 'gay gene' is illogical. A strict male homosexual would not engage in heterosexual behavior, and thus he could not pass his gay gene on to children he could not have.
Eugene FitzAubrey
You would be surprised at how many have been married!
I assume you mean to a person of the opposite sex. I suppose that's a
lot less common now that they have gained more rights to marry each
other and have gained more acceptance from the heterosexual world, but
it must have been pretty common a few decades ago. The woman my first
husband took up with after we divorced had been deserted by her
husband who left her for another man. I knew of other cases too.
Gary
2017-12-02 12:31:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
The idea of a 'gay gene' is illogical. A strict male homosexual would not engage in
heterosexual behavior, and thus he could not pass his gay gene on to children he could not have.
Eugene FitzAubrey
I seriously doubt there is a queer gene. My guess it is like any other mental
degeneration -- which are not hereditary.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-12-01 20:12:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 02:23:11 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
https://scontent-dft4-3.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/24176779_10215255909179954_6736514869540157171_n.jpg?oh=100f7dba40e687afcd83043d5d3a7627&oe=5AD0CBA4
If a genetic marker for bigotry can be identified, would you
have any objection to abortion?
Sorry about that, but I know that El Castor's all-too-common
right-wing lousiness, which he perhaps regards as "wit", was
really directed at me, and you were in the middle. I set him
off, I guess, by pointing out that an unbelievably stupid
argument he had tried to make recently was even flakier
than most of his worst - so flaky that it's hard to believe that
anybody, even a dumbass who kills people to steal their
sneakers, would actually try to make it.
What Jeff was trying to establish is that abortion rights supporters are
hypocrites because they won't allow women certain abortions. I don't
think that is flaky argument, but it nonetheless fails because we
wouldn't outlaw such abortions, even though we would attempt to apply
public pressure to make them undesirable.
I was responding specifically to Jeff's "If a genetic
marker for LGBTQ can be identified, would you have any
objection to abortion?", though my response itself
was as a followup to Wolfbat's original post, parallel
to rather than sequential to Jeff's post.

Personally I might go along with abortion for severe
disability of the foetus that would produce a lifetime
of suffering, though that is indeed a hard moral issue.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
To the contrary, a slew of laws have been passed by Republicans that
outlaw abortions on the basis of gender, race or disability as a back
door to outlawing abortions in general. These tactics, like requiring
ultrasounds are the only strategy pro-lifers have given Roe.
https://tinyurl.com/y94nyavp
El Castor
2017-12-01 19:56:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 02:23:11 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
https://scontent-dft4-3.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/24176779_10215255909179954_6736514869540157171_n.jpg?oh=100f7dba40e687afcd83043d5d3a7627&oe=5AD0CBA4
If a genetic marker for bigotry can be identified, would you
have any objection to abortion?
Sorry about that, but I know that El Castor's all-too-common
right-wing lousiness, which he perhaps regards as "wit", was
really directed at me, and you were in the middle. I set him
off, I guess, by pointing out that an unbelievably stupid
argument he had tried to make recently was even flakier
than most of his worst - so flaky that it's hard to believe that
anybody, even a dumbass who kills people to steal their
sneakers, would actually try to make it.
This was not "wit", nor was it directed at you -- in particular.
Liberals love abortion -- unless said abortion tweaks a left wing
nerve. Just a test of the degree of Wolfbat's hypocrisy.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-12-01 20:12:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 11:56:49 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 02:23:11 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
https://scontent-dft4-3.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/24176779_10215255909179954_6736514869540157171_n.jpg?oh=100f7dba40e687afcd83043d5d3a7627&oe=5AD0CBA4
If a genetic marker for bigotry can be identified, would you
have any objection to abortion?
Sorry about that, but I know that El Castor's all-too-common
right-wing lousiness, which he perhaps regards as "wit", was
really directed at me, and you were in the middle. I set him
off, I guess, by pointing out that an unbelievably stupid
argument he had tried to make recently was even flakier
than most of his worst - so flaky that it's hard to believe that
anybody, even a dumbass who kills people to steal their
sneakers, would actually try to make it.
This was not "wit", nor was it directed at you -- in particular.
Liberals love abortion -- unless said abortion tweaks a left wing
nerve. Just a test of the degree of Wolfbat's hypocrisy.
Oh come off it. You're not fooling anybody.
El Castor
2017-12-02 04:25:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 11:56:49 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 02:23:11 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
https://scontent-dft4-3.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/24176779_10215255909179954_6736514869540157171_n.jpg?oh=100f7dba40e687afcd83043d5d3a7627&oe=5AD0CBA4
If a genetic marker for bigotry can be identified, would you
have any objection to abortion?
Sorry about that, but I know that El Castor's all-too-common
right-wing lousiness, which he perhaps regards as "wit", was
really directed at me, and you were in the middle. I set him
off, I guess, by pointing out that an unbelievably stupid
argument he had tried to make recently was even flakier
than most of his worst - so flaky that it's hard to believe that
anybody, even a dumbass who kills people to steal their
sneakers, would actually try to make it.
This was not "wit", nor was it directed at you -- in particular.
Liberals love abortion -- unless said abortion tweaks a left wing
nerve. Just a test of the degree of Wolfbat's hypocrisy.
Oh come off it. You're not fooling anybody.
You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you in the ass. Everything is
not about you -- you pompous ass. I suggest you stay out of this. I am
anxious to see the wolfthing choose between two fundamental precepts
of his theology -- a woman's right to choose and the sacred nature of
homosexuality. Which wins? I already know the answer, but I would like
to hear it from him.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-12-02 04:31:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 20:25:33 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 11:56:49 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 02:23:11 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
https://scontent-dft4-3.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/24176779_10215255909179954_6736514869540157171_n.jpg?oh=100f7dba40e687afcd83043d5d3a7627&oe=5AD0CBA4
If a genetic marker for bigotry can be identified, would you
have any objection to abortion?
Sorry about that, but I know that El Castor's all-too-common
right-wing lousiness, which he perhaps regards as "wit", was
really directed at me, and you were in the middle. I set him
off, I guess, by pointing out that an unbelievably stupid
argument he had tried to make recently was even flakier
than most of his worst - so flaky that it's hard to believe that
anybody, even a dumbass who kills people to steal their
sneakers, would actually try to make it.
This was not "wit", nor was it directed at you -- in particular.
Liberals love abortion -- unless said abortion tweaks a left wing
nerve. Just a test of the degree of Wolfbat's hypocrisy.
Oh come off it. You're not fooling anybody.
You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you in the ass. Everything is
not about you -- you pompous ass. I suggest you stay out of this. I am
anxious to see the wolfthing choose between two fundamental precepts
of his theology -- a woman's right to choose and the sacred nature of
homosexuality. Which wins? I already know the answer, but I would like
to hear it from him.
GFY, you bigoted A.H.
El Castor
2017-12-02 09:37:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 20:25:33 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 11:56:49 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 02:23:11 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
https://scontent-dft4-3.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/24176779_10215255909179954_6736514869540157171_n.jpg?oh=100f7dba40e687afcd83043d5d3a7627&oe=5AD0CBA4
If a genetic marker for bigotry can be identified, would you
have any objection to abortion?
Sorry about that, but I know that El Castor's all-too-common
right-wing lousiness, which he perhaps regards as "wit", was
really directed at me, and you were in the middle. I set him
off, I guess, by pointing out that an unbelievably stupid
argument he had tried to make recently was even flakier
than most of his worst - so flaky that it's hard to believe that
anybody, even a dumbass who kills people to steal their
sneakers, would actually try to make it.
This was not "wit", nor was it directed at you -- in particular.
Liberals love abortion -- unless said abortion tweaks a left wing
nerve. Just a test of the degree of Wolfbat's hypocrisy.
Oh come off it. You're not fooling anybody.
You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you in the ass. Everything is
not about you -- you pompous ass. I suggest you stay out of this. I am
anxious to see the wolfthing choose between two fundamental precepts
of his theology -- a woman's right to choose and the sacred nature of
homosexuality. Which wins? I already know the answer, but I would like
to hear it from him.
GFY, you bigoted A.H.
Before I go, the answer is, it's a woman's right to choose. We don't
get to quiz her on her motives. It's her body. OK with you?
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-12-02 15:46:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Before I go, the answer is, it's a woman's right to choose. We don't
get to quiz her on her motives. It's her body. OK with you?
OK with me (but we use the power of persuasion to make such abortions
anathema). But as I posted earlier, it is pro-lifers who want to quiz
her motives.

https://tinyurl.com/y94nyavp
El Castor
2017-12-02 20:57:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Before I go, the answer is, it's a woman's right to choose. We don't
get to quiz her on her motives. It's her body. OK with you?
OK with me (but we use the power of persuasion to make such abortions
anathema). But as I posted earlier, it is pro-lifers who want to quiz
her motives.
https://tinyurl.com/y94nyavp
Pro-lifers, no doubt, but the extremes of politics being what they
are, some on the Left would go nuts at the thought of an LGBTQ
abortion. Someone once said that politics is a circle. If you go far
enough to the Left you will run head on into the Right -- and vice
versa.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-12-02 23:07:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Before I go, the answer is, it's a woman's right to choose. We don't
get to quiz her on her motives. It's her body. OK with you?
OK with me (but we use the power of persuasion to make such abortions
anathema). But as I posted earlier, it is pro-lifers who want to quiz
her motives.
https://tinyurl.com/y94nyavp
Pro-lifers, no doubt, but the extremes of politics being what they
are, some on the Left would go nuts at the thought of an LGBTQ
abortion.
It has been a standard practice of pro-lifers to nibble at the edges of
abortion rights where their position is popular (e.g., partial-birth
abortions). The above laws are another example of that strategy and I
suspect these laws are widely popular across the political spectrum.
El Castor
2017-12-05 07:37:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Before I go, the answer is, it's a woman's right to choose. We don't
get to quiz her on her motives. It's her body. OK with you?
OK with me (but we use the power of persuasion to make such abortions
anathema). But as I posted earlier, it is pro-lifers who want to quiz
her motives.
https://tinyurl.com/y94nyavp
Pro-lifers, no doubt, but the extremes of politics being what they
are, some on the Left would go nuts at the thought of an LGBTQ
abortion.
It has been a standard practice of pro-lifers to nibble at the edges of
abortion rights where their position is popular (e.g., partial-birth
abortions). The above laws are another example of that strategy and I
suspect these laws are widely popular across the political spectrum.
I am not a pro-lifer. I understand the need for abortion, although the
abortion of a viable healthy fetus does seem repellant. The insertion
of surgical scissors into the base of the brain of a viable healthy
baby -- legal because so much as a toe is still in the birth canal --
that bothers me.

What I am objecting to in this case is the mentality that isn't fazed
by the use of those scissors, but I know would protest the abortion of
an LGBTQ fetus in any trimester.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-12-05 15:39:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Before I go, the answer is, it's a woman's right to choose. We don't
get to quiz her on her motives. It's her body. OK with you?
OK with me (but we use the power of persuasion to make such abortions
anathema). But as I posted earlier, it is pro-lifers who want to quiz
her motives.
https://tinyurl.com/y94nyavp
Pro-lifers, no doubt, but the extremes of politics being what they
are, some on the Left would go nuts at the thought of an LGBTQ
abortion.
It has been a standard practice of pro-lifers to nibble at the edges of
abortion rights where their position is popular (e.g., partial-birth
abortions). The above laws are another example of that strategy and I
suspect these laws are widely popular across the political spectrum.
I am not a pro-lifer. I understand the need for abortion, although the
abortion of a viable healthy fetus does seem repellant. The insertion
of surgical scissors into the base of the brain of a viable healthy
baby -- legal because so much as a toe is still in the birth canal --
that bothers me.
Partial-birth abortions are not done when the fetus is viable.
Post by El Castor
What I am objecting to in this case is the mentality that isn't fazed
by the use of those scissors, but I know would protest the abortion of
an LGBTQ fetus in any trimester
I suspect there are very few people who support on-demand abortions of a
viable fetus, so your objection doesn't mean a whole lot.
El Castor
2017-12-05 22:02:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Before I go, the answer is, it's a woman's right to choose. We don't
get to quiz her on her motives. It's her body. OK with you?
OK with me (but we use the power of persuasion to make such abortions
anathema). But as I posted earlier, it is pro-lifers who want to quiz
her motives.
https://tinyurl.com/y94nyavp
Pro-lifers, no doubt, but the extremes of politics being what they
are, some on the Left would go nuts at the thought of an LGBTQ
abortion.
It has been a standard practice of pro-lifers to nibble at the edges of
abortion rights where their position is popular (e.g., partial-birth
abortions). The above laws are another example of that strategy and I
suspect these laws are widely popular across the political spectrum.
I am not a pro-lifer. I understand the need for abortion, although the
abortion of a viable healthy fetus does seem repellant. The insertion
of surgical scissors into the base of the brain of a viable healthy
baby -- legal because so much as a toe is still in the birth canal --
that bothers me.
Partial-birth abortions are not done when the fetus is viable.
Oops. I've done some reading and it looks like you are right.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
What I am objecting to in this case is the mentality that isn't fazed
by the use of those scissors, but I know would protest the abortion of
an LGBTQ fetus in any trimester
I suspect there are very few people who support on-demand abortions of a
viable fetus, so your objection doesn't mean a whole lot.
There are roughly 650,000 abortions annually in the United States.
About 125,000 are medical procedures. Almost all are done during the
first trimester, and for many different reasons. I know of one in my
own family that was done when an IUD failed.

If an LGBTQ genetic marker could be identified ...

* Would you object to an abortion on those grounds?

* Do you believe there would be substantial numbers on the political
left who would object?
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-12-06 01:25:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Before I go, the answer is, it's a woman's right to choose. We don't
get to quiz her on her motives. It's her body. OK with you?
OK with me (but we use the power of persuasion to make such abortions
anathema). But as I posted earlier, it is pro-lifers who want to quiz
her motives.
https://tinyurl.com/y94nyavp
Pro-lifers, no doubt, but the extremes of politics being what they
are, some on the Left would go nuts at the thought of an LGBTQ
abortion.
It has been a standard practice of pro-lifers to nibble at the edges of
abortion rights where their position is popular (e.g., partial-birth
abortions). The above laws are another example of that strategy and I
suspect these laws are widely popular across the political spectrum.
I am not a pro-lifer. I understand the need for abortion, although the
abortion of a viable healthy fetus does seem repellant. The insertion
of surgical scissors into the base of the brain of a viable healthy
baby -- legal because so much as a toe is still in the birth canal --
that bothers me.
Partial-birth abortions are not done when the fetus is viable.
Oops. I've done some reading and it looks like you are right.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
What I am objecting to in this case is the mentality that isn't fazed
by the use of those scissors, but I know would protest the abortion of
an LGBTQ fetus in any trimester
I suspect there are very few people who support on-demand abortions of a
viable fetus, so your objection doesn't mean a whole lot.
There are roughly 650,000 abortions annually in the United States.
About 125,000 are medical procedures. Almost all are done during the
first trimester, and for many different reasons. I know of one in my
own family that was done when an IUD failed.
If an LGBTQ genetic marker could be identified ...
* Would you object to an abortion on those grounds?
Asked and answered (see above).
Post by El Castor
* Do you believe there would be substantial numbers on the political
left who would object?
Asked and answered (see above).
El Castor
2017-12-06 07:39:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Before I go, the answer is, it's a woman's right to choose. We don't
get to quiz her on her motives. It's her body. OK with you?
OK with me (but we use the power of persuasion to make such abortions
anathema). But as I posted earlier, it is pro-lifers who want to quiz
her motives.
https://tinyurl.com/y94nyavp
Pro-lifers, no doubt, but the extremes of politics being what they
are, some on the Left would go nuts at the thought of an LGBTQ
abortion.
It has been a standard practice of pro-lifers to nibble at the edges of
abortion rights where their position is popular (e.g., partial-birth
abortions). The above laws are another example of that strategy and I
suspect these laws are widely popular across the political spectrum.
I am not a pro-lifer. I understand the need for abortion, although the
abortion of a viable healthy fetus does seem repellant. The insertion
of surgical scissors into the base of the brain of a viable healthy
baby -- legal because so much as a toe is still in the birth canal --
that bothers me.
Partial-birth abortions are not done when the fetus is viable.
Oops. I've done some reading and it looks like you are right.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
What I am objecting to in this case is the mentality that isn't fazed
by the use of those scissors, but I know would protest the abortion of
an LGBTQ fetus in any trimester
I suspect there are very few people who support on-demand abortions of a
viable fetus, so your objection doesn't mean a whole lot.
There are roughly 650,000 abortions annually in the United States.
About 125,000 are medical procedures. Almost all are done during the
first trimester, and for many different reasons. I know of one in my
own family that was done when an IUD failed.
If an LGBTQ genetic marker could be identified ...
* Would you object to an abortion on those grounds?
Asked and answered (see above).
I see, then that would be a Yes.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
* Do you believe there would be substantial numbers on the political
left who would object?
Asked and answered (see above).
And another Yes.

Thanks for your honesty.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-12-06 15:50:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Before I go, the answer is, it's a woman's right to choose. We don't
get to quiz her on her motives. It's her body. OK with you?
OK with me (but we use the power of persuasion to make such abortions
anathema). But as I posted earlier, it is pro-lifers who want to quiz
her motives.
https://tinyurl.com/y94nyavp
Pro-lifers, no doubt, but the extremes of politics being what they
are, some on the Left would go nuts at the thought of an LGBTQ
abortion.
It has been a standard practice of pro-lifers to nibble at the edges of
abortion rights where their position is popular (e.g., partial-birth
abortions). The above laws are another example of that strategy and I
suspect these laws are widely popular across the political spectrum.
I am not a pro-lifer. I understand the need for abortion, although the
abortion of a viable healthy fetus does seem repellant. The insertion
of surgical scissors into the base of the brain of a viable healthy
baby -- legal because so much as a toe is still in the birth canal --
that bothers me.
Partial-birth abortions are not done when the fetus is viable.
Oops. I've done some reading and it looks like you are right.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
What I am objecting to in this case is the mentality that isn't fazed
by the use of those scissors, but I know would protest the abortion of
an LGBTQ fetus in any trimester
I suspect there are very few people who support on-demand abortions of a
viable fetus, so your objection doesn't mean a whole lot.
There are roughly 650,000 abortions annually in the United States.
About 125,000 are medical procedures. Almost all are done during the
first trimester, and for many different reasons. I know of one in my
own family that was done when an IUD failed.
If an LGBTQ genetic marker could be identified ...
* Would you object to an abortion on those grounds?
Asked and answered (see above).
I see, then that would be a Yes.
Your reading comprehension is not the best. Check again (it's up there).
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
* Do you believe there would be substantial numbers on the political
left who would object?
Asked and answered (see above).
And another Yes.
Your reading comprehension is not the best. Check again (it's up there).
El Castor
2017-12-06 22:52:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Before I go, the answer is, it's a woman's right to choose. We don't
get to quiz her on her motives. It's her body. OK with you?
OK with me (but we use the power of persuasion to make such abortions
anathema). But as I posted earlier, it is pro-lifers who want to quiz
her motives.
https://tinyurl.com/y94nyavp
Pro-lifers, no doubt, but the extremes of politics being what they
are, some on the Left would go nuts at the thought of an LGBTQ
abortion.
It has been a standard practice of pro-lifers to nibble at the edges of
abortion rights where their position is popular (e.g., partial-birth
abortions). The above laws are another example of that strategy and I
suspect these laws are widely popular across the political spectrum.
I am not a pro-lifer. I understand the need for abortion, although the
abortion of a viable healthy fetus does seem repellant. The insertion
of surgical scissors into the base of the brain of a viable healthy
baby -- legal because so much as a toe is still in the birth canal --
that bothers me.
Partial-birth abortions are not done when the fetus is viable.
Oops. I've done some reading and it looks like you are right.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
What I am objecting to in this case is the mentality that isn't fazed
by the use of those scissors, but I know would protest the abortion of
an LGBTQ fetus in any trimester
I suspect there are very few people who support on-demand abortions of a
viable fetus, so your objection doesn't mean a whole lot.
There are roughly 650,000 abortions annually in the United States.
About 125,000 are medical procedures. Almost all are done during the
first trimester, and for many different reasons. I know of one in my
own family that was done when an IUD failed.
If an LGBTQ genetic marker could be identified ...
* Would you object to an abortion on those grounds?
Asked and answered (see above).
I see, then that would be a Yes.
Your reading comprehension is not the best. Check again (it's up there).
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
* Do you believe there would be substantial numbers on the political
left who would object?
Asked and answered (see above).
And another Yes.
Your reading comprehension is not the best. Check again (it's up there).
Yes and Yes! I am very pleased that you have come around to my way of
thinking! Please feel free to think of me as your mentor! Hmmm. I
guess that makes you a mentee!
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-12-07 00:19:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Before I go, the answer is, it's a woman's right to choose. We don't
get to quiz her on her motives. It's her body. OK with you?
OK with me (but we use the power of persuasion to make such abortions
anathema). But as I posted earlier, it is pro-lifers who want to quiz
her motives.
https://tinyurl.com/y94nyavp
Pro-lifers, no doubt, but the extremes of politics being what they
are, some on the Left would go nuts at the thought of an LGBTQ
abortion.
It has been a standard practice of pro-lifers to nibble at the edges of
abortion rights where their position is popular (e.g., partial-birth
abortions). The above laws are another example of that strategy and I
suspect these laws are widely popular across the political spectrum.
I am not a pro-lifer. I understand the need for abortion, although the
abortion of a viable healthy fetus does seem repellant. The insertion
of surgical scissors into the base of the brain of a viable healthy
baby -- legal because so much as a toe is still in the birth canal --
that bothers me.
Partial-birth abortions are not done when the fetus is viable.
Oops. I've done some reading and it looks like you are right.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
What I am objecting to in this case is the mentality that isn't fazed
by the use of those scissors, but I know would protest the abortion of
an LGBTQ fetus in any trimester
I suspect there are very few people who support on-demand abortions of a
viable fetus, so your objection doesn't mean a whole lot.
There are roughly 650,000 abortions annually in the United States.
About 125,000 are medical procedures. Almost all are done during the
first trimester, and for many different reasons. I know of one in my
own family that was done when an IUD failed.
If an LGBTQ genetic marker could be identified ...
* Would you object to an abortion on those grounds?
Asked and answered (see above).
I see, then that would be a Yes.
Your reading comprehension is not the best. Check again (it's up there).
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
* Do you believe there would be substantial numbers on the political
left who would object?
Asked and answered (see above).
And another Yes.
Your reading comprehension is not the best. Check again (it's up there).
Yes and Yes!
No. Try again.
El Castor
2017-12-07 01:39:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Before I go, the answer is, it's a woman's right to choose. We don't
get to quiz her on her motives. It's her body. OK with you?
OK with me (but we use the power of persuasion to make such abortions
anathema). But as I posted earlier, it is pro-lifers who want to quiz
her motives.
https://tinyurl.com/y94nyavp
Pro-lifers, no doubt, but the extremes of politics being what they
are, some on the Left would go nuts at the thought of an LGBTQ
abortion.
It has been a standard practice of pro-lifers to nibble at the edges of
abortion rights where their position is popular (e.g., partial-birth
abortions). The above laws are another example of that strategy and I
suspect these laws are widely popular across the political spectrum.
I am not a pro-lifer. I understand the need for abortion, although the
abortion of a viable healthy fetus does seem repellant. The insertion
of surgical scissors into the base of the brain of a viable healthy
baby -- legal because so much as a toe is still in the birth canal --
that bothers me.
Partial-birth abortions are not done when the fetus is viable.
Oops. I've done some reading and it looks like you are right.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
What I am objecting to in this case is the mentality that isn't fazed
by the use of those scissors, but I know would protest the abortion of
an LGBTQ fetus in any trimester
I suspect there are very few people who support on-demand abortions of a
viable fetus, so your objection doesn't mean a whole lot.
There are roughly 650,000 abortions annually in the United States.
About 125,000 are medical procedures. Almost all are done during the
first trimester, and for many different reasons. I know of one in my
own family that was done when an IUD failed.
If an LGBTQ genetic marker could be identified ...
* Would you object to an abortion on those grounds?
Asked and answered (see above).
I see, then that would be a Yes.
Your reading comprehension is not the best. Check again (it's up there).
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
* Do you believe there would be substantial numbers on the political
left who would object?
Asked and answered (see above).
And another Yes.
Your reading comprehension is not the best. Check again (it's up there).
Yes and Yes!
No. Try again.
Oh well, so it is your position that it is not a woman's right to
choose. Sad, but I tried. )-8
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-12-07 04:04:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Before I go, the answer is, it's a woman's right to choose. We don't
get to quiz her on her motives. It's her body. OK with you?
OK with me (but we use the power of persuasion to make such abortions
anathema). But as I posted earlier, it is pro-lifers who want to quiz
her motives.
https://tinyurl.com/y94nyavp
Pro-lifers, no doubt, but the extremes of politics being what they
are, some on the Left would go nuts at the thought of an LGBTQ
abortion.
It has been a standard practice of pro-lifers to nibble at the edges of
abortion rights where their position is popular (e.g., partial-birth
abortions). The above laws are another example of that strategy and I
suspect these laws are widely popular across the political spectrum.
I am not a pro-lifer. I understand the need for abortion, although the
abortion of a viable healthy fetus does seem repellant. The insertion
of surgical scissors into the base of the brain of a viable healthy
baby -- legal because so much as a toe is still in the birth canal --
that bothers me.
Partial-birth abortions are not done when the fetus is viable.
Oops. I've done some reading and it looks like you are right.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
What I am objecting to in this case is the mentality that isn't fazed
by the use of those scissors, but I know would protest the abortion of
an LGBTQ fetus in any trimester
I suspect there are very few people who support on-demand abortions of a
viable fetus, so your objection doesn't mean a whole lot.
There are roughly 650,000 abortions annually in the United States.
About 125,000 are medical procedures. Almost all are done during the
first trimester, and for many different reasons. I know of one in my
own family that was done when an IUD failed.
If an LGBTQ genetic marker could be identified ...
* Would you object to an abortion on those grounds?
Asked and answered (see above).
I see, then that would be a Yes.
Your reading comprehension is not the best. Check again (it's up there).
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
* Do you believe there would be substantial numbers on the political
left who would object?
Asked and answered (see above).
And another Yes.
Your reading comprehension is not the best. Check again (it's up there).
Yes and Yes!
No. Try again.
Oh well, so it is your position that it is not a woman's right to
choose.
Still wrong.
El Castor
2017-12-07 17:32:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Before I go, the answer is, it's a woman's right to choose. We don't
get to quiz her on her motives. It's her body. OK with you?
OK with me (but we use the power of persuasion to make such abortions
anathema). But as I posted earlier, it is pro-lifers who want to quiz
her motives.
https://tinyurl.com/y94nyavp
Pro-lifers, no doubt, but the extremes of politics being what they
are, some on the Left would go nuts at the thought of an LGBTQ
abortion.
It has been a standard practice of pro-lifers to nibble at the edges of
abortion rights where their position is popular (e.g., partial-birth
abortions). The above laws are another example of that strategy and I
suspect these laws are widely popular across the political spectrum.
I am not a pro-lifer. I understand the need for abortion, although the
abortion of a viable healthy fetus does seem repellant. The insertion
of surgical scissors into the base of the brain of a viable healthy
baby -- legal because so much as a toe is still in the birth canal --
that bothers me.
Partial-birth abortions are not done when the fetus is viable.
Oops. I've done some reading and it looks like you are right.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
What I am objecting to in this case is the mentality that isn't fazed
by the use of those scissors, but I know would protest the abortion of
an LGBTQ fetus in any trimester
I suspect there are very few people who support on-demand abortions of a
viable fetus, so your objection doesn't mean a whole lot.
There are roughly 650,000 abortions annually in the United States.
About 125,000 are medical procedures. Almost all are done during the
first trimester, and for many different reasons. I know of one in my
own family that was done when an IUD failed.
If an LGBTQ genetic marker could be identified ...
* Would you object to an abortion on those grounds?
Asked and answered (see above).
I see, then that would be a Yes.
Your reading comprehension is not the best. Check again (it's up there).
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
* Do you believe there would be substantial numbers on the political
left who would object?
Asked and answered (see above).
And another Yes.
Your reading comprehension is not the best. Check again (it's up there).
Yes and Yes!
No. Try again.
Oh well, so it is your position that it is not a woman's right to
choose.
Still wrong.
Hmmm, so a woman does have the right to choose, but we scold her if
she aborts that LGBTQ fetus? Why do we do that? Has she done a bad
thing -- made the wrong decision?

Loading...