Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Images: A Woman's Right To Choose

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 3:26:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/roberts

More about : images woman choose

Anonymous
September 22, 2005 3:42:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Rich wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 23:26:22 -0400, "Dean S. Lautermilch"
> <calldean@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/roberts
> >
> >
>
> One of the commentors on the gallery is an idiot.
> If (as she said) the Administration was "turning a blind
> eye" they'd (the women) would have nothing to worry about.
> -Rich

I think she might've meant turning a blind eye to their protests.
September 22, 2005 4:08:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 23:26:22 -0400, "Dean S. Lautermilch"
<calldean@hotmail.com> wrote:

>http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/roberts
>
>

One of the commentors on the gallery is an idiot.
If (as she said) the Administration was "turning a blind
eye" they'd (the women) would have nothing to worry about.
-Rich
Related resources
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 8:34:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Dean S. Lautermilch" <calldean@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:11j4938rs1g7t06@news.supernews.com...
> http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/roberts


Don't these murderesses just love their disgusting street theatre?!

The only 'right' they have is the right not to engage in sexual
intercourse - not the 'right' to cut children into pieces whilst still in
the womb.

America (along with many other nations) is soaked in the blood of its
murdered infants - perhaps that's why even the wind and waves rise up in
fury against it.
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 9:40:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Pinky & Perky sing Cole Porter wrote:

> "Dean S. Lautermilch" <calldean@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:11j4938rs1g7t06@news.supernews.com...
>
>>http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/roberts
>
>
>
> Don't these murderesses just love their disgusting street theatre?!
>
> The only 'right' they have is the right not to engage in sexual
> intercourse - not the 'right' to cut children into pieces whilst still in
> the womb.
>
> America (along with many other nations) is soaked in the blood of its
> murdered infants - perhaps that's why even the wind and waves rise up in
> fury against it.
>
>
>

I hope you're not a meat eater.

--
--
Ben Thomas - Melbourne, Australia
The essentials: Kodak DX6490, Nikon D70, Canon i9950, Pioneer DVR-109,
Hitachi W37-PD2100, DGTEC 2000A, Harmon/Kardon AVR4500, Denon DVD-2800,
Whatmough Synergy, Sony Ericsson K700i, Palm LifeDrive.

Disclaimer:
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 12:30:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 21 Sep 2005 23:42:29 -0700, "Mike Henley" <casioculture@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>Rich wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 23:26:22 -0400, "Dean S. Lautermilch"
>> <calldean@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/roberts
>> >
>> >
>>
>> One of the commentors on the gallery is an idiot.
>> If (as she said) the Administration was "turning a blind
>> eye" they'd (the women) would have nothing to worry about.
>> -Rich
>
>I think she might've meant turning a blind eye to their protests.

I wonder how many people actually understand Roe v Wade?
It didn't "legalize" abortion; instead, it took it out of the arena of
state control, and made it a Constitutionaly guaranteed right.
Even Roberts said Roe v Wade is settled law; this means there's no way
it's going to be overturned anytime soon.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 1:20:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mike Henley wrote:

> I think she might've meant turning a blind eye to their protests.

Cognition is not one of Rich's strong points.
September 22, 2005 2:07:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

But cyberstalking is one of yours.
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 2:56:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 04:34:12 +0100, "Pinky & Perky sing Cole
Porter" <pigs@musicschool.com> wrote:

>"Dean S. Lautermilch" <calldean@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:11j4938rs1g7t06@news.supernews.com...

>> http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/roberts

>Don't these murderesses just love their disgusting street theatre?!
>
>The only 'right' they have is the right not to engage in sexual
>intercourse - not the 'right' to cut children into pieces whilst still in
>the womb.
>
>America (along with many other nations) is soaked in the blood of its
>murdered infants - perhaps that's why even the wind and waves rise up in
>fury against it.

Oh, now I understand why the hurricans so often pick at the US!
I've always wondered.

Hans-Georg

p.s. Besides "child" and "infant" there is also the word
"embryo". What does it mean? Is there any difference?

--
No mail, please.
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 4:07:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Rich wrote:

> But cyberstalking is one of yours.

To quote yourself, dickhead: "Don't like, don't read."
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 4:33:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill DeWitt wrote:

>> If you're against abortion, don't have one.
>
> If you are against robbery, don't rob.
> If you are against rape, don't rape.

If you are against reading comprehension, don't read.

> Do you even see how uncritical that thought process is?

Your straw-man construction permit is hereby revoked.
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 4:54:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill DeWitt wrote:

> eawckyegcy@yahoo.com mentioned in passing :
> >
> > Bill DeWitt wrote:
> >
> >>> If you're against abortion, don't have one.
> >>
> >> If you are against robbery, don't rob.
> >> If you are against rape, don't rape.
> >
> > If you are against reading comprehension, don't read.
>
> If you don't have a refutation, why bother to post?

A refutation is only possible if you actually made a point.

Now your point appears to be making a complete idiot of yourself, so
you'll just have to excuse me if I actually laugh at you. Was that not
your intent?
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 5:54:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Rich wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 23:26:22 -0400, "Dean S. Lautermilch"
> <calldean@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/roberts
>>
>>
>
> One of the commentors on the gallery is an idiot.
> If (as she said) the Administration was "turning a blind
> eye" they'd (the women) would have nothing to worry about.
> -Rich

"Turning a blind eye" is still a new catchphrase for the left - they're
still working out the kinks...
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 7:39:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com mentioned in passing :
>
> Bill DeWitt wrote:
>
>>> If you're against abortion, don't have one.
>>
>> If you are against robbery, don't rob.
>> If you are against rape, don't rape.
>
> If you are against reading comprehension, don't read.

If you don't have a refutation, why bother to post? Checking your
posting history, I see you are not worth the effort. Personal attacks...
funny when accompanied by factual or logical content, lame when you do it.
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 9:12:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 2005-09-21 20:34:12 -0700, "Pinky & Perky sing Cole Porter"
<pigs@musicschool.com> said:

>
> "Dean S. Lautermilch" <calldean@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:11j4938rs1g7t06@news.supernews.com...
>> http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/roberts
>
>
> Don't these murderesses just love their disgusting street theatre?!
>
> The only 'right' they have is the right not to engage in sexual
> intercourse - not the 'right' to cut children into pieces whilst still
> in the womb.
>
> America (along with many other nations) is soaked in the blood of its
> murdered infants - perhaps that's why even the wind and waves rise up
> in fury against it.

I am an attorney specializing in death penalty appeals. Most of my
clients started out as unwanted children. Do those of you who oppose
abortion ever do anything about the unwanted children whose mothers did
not get abortions? Do you care what happens to them? It always struck
me as odd that so many of the people who oppose abortion have no
problem when unwanted children grow up and find themselves facing
execution.
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 9:12:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <2005092210123716807%mecutler@mindspringcom>, Mark Cutler
<mecutler@mindspring.com> wrote:

> I am an attorney specializing in death penalty appeals. Most of my
> clients started out as unwanted children. Do those of you who oppose
> abortion ever do anything about the unwanted children whose mothers did
> not get abortions? Do you care what happens to them? It always struck
> me as odd that so many of the people who oppose abortion have no
> problem when unwanted children grow up and find themselves facing
> execution.

What ever happened to personal responsibility?

There's a difference between punishing the guilty and murdering the
innocent.
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 9:12:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark Cutler mentioned in passing :
>
> I am an attorney specializing in death penalty appeals. Most of my
> clients started out as unwanted children.

Ignoring your contention that you can accurately mind-read the desires
of a woman 20-30 years ago, and your failure to cite documents supporting
your assertion of statistical significance to that mind-reading, lets
examine your suggestion that it's OK if we execute certain children before
they are born because they will probably end up being murderers anyway.

...examining... examining...

Now we know why there are Lawyer jokes.
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 9:12:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark Cutler" <mecutler@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:2005092210123716807%mecutler@mindspringcom...
> I am an attorney specializing in death penalty appeals. Most of my clients
> started out as unwanted children. Do those of you who oppose abortion ever
> do anything about the unwanted children whose mothers did not get
> abortions? Do you care what happens to them? It always struck me as odd
> that so many of the people who oppose abortion have no problem when
> unwanted children grow up and find themselves facing execution.
>

Nice try but it doesn't fly. You see, your clients made a choice to kill
someone, no one forced them into it. They are responsible for their action.
Compare that to an innocent unborn child and the fallacy of your argument
comes through loud and clear.
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 9:12:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark Cutler wrote:
> On 2005-09-21 20:34:12 -0700, "Pinky & Perky sing Cole Porter"
> <pigs@musicschool.com> said:
>
>>
>> "Dean S. Lautermilch" <calldean@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:11j4938rs1g7t06@news.supernews.com...
>>> http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/roberts
>>
>>
>> Don't these murderesses just love their disgusting street theatre?!
>>
>> The only 'right' they have is the right not to engage in sexual
>> intercourse - not the 'right' to cut children into pieces whilst
>> still in the womb.
>>
>> America (along with many other nations) is soaked in the blood of its
>> murdered infants - perhaps that's why even the wind and waves rise up
>> in fury against it.
>
> I am an attorney specializing in death penalty appeals. Most of my
> clients started out as unwanted children. Do those of you who oppose
> abortion ever do anything about the unwanted children whose mothers
> did not get abortions? Do you care what happens to them? It always
> struck me as odd that so many of the people who oppose abortion have
> no problem when unwanted children grow up and find themselves facing
> execution.

Perhaps because your clients had freedom of choice in the actions that
lead them to the consequences you are trying to help them avoid?
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 9:12:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:220920051047320541%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <2005092210123716807%mecutler@mindspringcom>, Mark Cutler
> <mecutler@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> I am an attorney specializing in death penalty appeals. Most of my
>> clients started out as unwanted children. Do those of you who oppose
>> abortion ever do anything about the unwanted children whose mothers did
>> not get abortions? Do you care what happens to them? It always struck
>> me as odd that so many of the people who oppose abortion have no
>> problem when unwanted children grow up and find themselves facing
>> execution.
>
> What ever happened to personal responsibility?
>
> There's a difference between punishing the guilty and murdering the
> innocent.

You make me nervous when we agree on any point :) 
September 22, 2005 9:30:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark Cutler" <mecutler@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:2005092210123716807%mecutler@mindspringcom...
> On 2005-09-21 20:34:12 -0700, "Pinky & Perky sing Cole Porter"
> <pigs@musicschool.com> said:
>
>>
>> "Dean S. Lautermilch" <calldean@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:11j4938rs1g7t06@news.supernews.com...
>>> http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/roberts
>>
>>
>> Don't these murderesses just love their disgusting street theatre?!
>>
>> The only 'right' they have is the right not to engage in sexual
>> intercourse - not the 'right' to cut children into pieces whilst still in
>> the womb.
>>
>> America (along with many other nations) is soaked in the blood of its
>> murdered infants - perhaps that's why even the wind and waves rise up in
>> fury against it.
>
> I am an attorney specializing in death penalty appeals. Most of my clients
> started out as unwanted children. Do those of you who oppose abortion ever
> do anything about the unwanted children whose mothers did not get
> abortions? Do you care what happens to them? It always struck me as odd
> that so many of the people who oppose abortion have no problem when
> unwanted children grow up and find themselves facing execution.
>

This issue is divisive, and is entirely UNRELATED to rec.photo.digital.

The OP should have exercised more discretion in the comments he wrote in
characterizing his photos.

The photos themselves are mundane, but I suspect that they will result in a
flame war on a newsgroup that is not associated with abortion.

Couldn't we all just stay on-topic and be friends?
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 10:57:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:220920051047320541%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <2005092210123716807%mecutler@mindspringcom>, Mark Cutler
> <mecutler@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> I am an attorney specializing in death penalty appeals. Most of my
>> clients started out as unwanted children. Do those of you who oppose
>> abortion ever do anything about the unwanted children whose mothers did
>> not get abortions? Do you care what happens to them? It always struck
>> me as odd that so many of the people who oppose abortion have no
>> problem when unwanted children grow up and find themselves facing
>> execution.
>
> What ever happened to personal responsibility?
>
> There's a difference between punishing the guilty and murdering the
> innocent.<

----

Hear Hear! - and, what's more, it's grossly offensive to suggest that some
children be culled, simply because they 'might not be wanted' - that is a
very dangerous pathway upon which to tread, as well as being insulting to
every person who has overcome childhood disadvantages to live a happy and
productive life.

Besides, 'Right To Choose' zealots are motivated, not by concern for the
unborn child, but by selfishness and promiscuity.
September 22, 2005 10:57:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Pinky & Perky sing Cole Porter" <pigs@musicschool.com> wrote in message news:3pg9lcFaat5vU1@individual.net...
> Besides, 'Right To Choose' zealots are motivated, not by concern for the
> unborn child, but by selfishness and promiscuity.

The state has no interest in unwanted pregnancies.

If you're against abortion, don't have one.

Next issue.
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 10:57:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Peter mentioned in passing :
>
> If you're against abortion, don't have one.

If you are against robbery, don't rob.
If you are against rape, don't rape.

Do you even see how uncritical that thought process is?

I don't believe abortion should be illegal, but I cannot accept the
propagandistic assertion that an abortion is "just a medical procedure".
Abortion ends a life and should only be done in the direst of circumstances
with full due process given to the rights of the life in question. The
constructed "Right of Privacy" is superceded by the explicit "Right to
Life".
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 10:57:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Peter mentioned in passing :
>
> Well, that's what people do. They copulate.

Interesting point of view. My favorite quote goes something like "The
one thing that separates humans from the animals is our ability to deny the
urge to copulate".

You, knowing yourself best, assume that the most human thing is to be
unable to resist the urge to copulate. I think that says more about you than
it does about humans.
September 22, 2005 11:25:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bill DeWitt" <Bill.DeWitt@adelphia.net> wrote in message news:uIKdnSgBK-5un67eRVn-rQ@adelphia.com...
> Peter mentioned in passing :
> >
> > If you're against abortion, don't have one.
>
> If you are against robbery, don't rob.
> If you are against rape, don't rape.
>
> Do you even see how uncritical that thought process is?
>
> I don't believe abortion should be illegal, but I cannot accept the
> propagandistic assertion that an abortion is "just a medical procedure".
> Abortion ends a life and should only be done in the direst of circumstances
> with full due process given to the rights of the life in question. The
> constructed "Right of Privacy" is superceded by the explicit "Right to
> Life".

What's constructed is the idea that fetuses have any rights. That's
precisely what has clouded this debate from the beginning.

And have you noticed it's almost always men who make these
dictatorial pronouncements about what women will and won't do
with their reproductive systems?
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 11:25:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <hyDYe.3101$q1.985@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, Peter
<nospamplease@rsii.net> wrote:

> What's constructed is the idea that fetuses have any rights. That's
> precisely what has clouded this debate from the beginning.

Oh, that's a cute little fetus!

> And have you noticed it's almost always men who make these
> dictatorial pronouncements about what women will and won't do
> with their reproductive systems?

It's about murdering babies.
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 11:25:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:
> Bill DeWitt wrote:
>
>> Peter mentioned in passing :
>>>
>>> What's constructed is the idea that fetuses have any rights.
>>
>> They fit the biological definition of human and life.
>
> It is a wiggling blob of protoplasm, etc, hopelessly dependent on its
> host organism while it "boots up". While it may have potential, _it_
> is about as human as a lizard at that point. Regardless, whether or
> not it lives or dies is a function of the _host_, not your unerring
> State. Billions of years of evolution, etc. These are plain facts,
> your neo-religious claptrap having no standing at all re: physical
> reality.

Your definition holds for humans up to several years after birth. How
long would an infant - or a two year old - survive without its "host's"
intervention?
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 11:25:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Peter mentioned in passing :
>
> "Bill DeWitt" <Bill.DeWitt@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:KqKdnZ6ltexFm67eRVn-ow@adelphia.com...
>> Peter mentioned in passing :
>>>
>>> What's constructed is the idea that fetuses have any rights.
>>
>> They fit the biological definition of human and life. Just
>> because some liberals have a restrictive legal theory about the
>> definition does not mean their Right to Life is a constructed Right.
>
> Fetal rights are absolutely constructed.

Repeating a bald assertion is the sign of an idealogue. Qualifies you
for a filter.
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 11:51:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Pinky & Perky sing Cole Porter wrote:
> "Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
> news:220920051047320541%rag@nospam.techline.com...
>
>>In article <2005092210123716807%mecutler@mindspringcom>, Mark Cutler
>><mecutler@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I am an attorney specializing in death penalty appeals. Most of my
>>>clients started out as unwanted children. Do those of you who oppose
>>>abortion ever do anything about the unwanted children whose mothers did
>>>not get abortions? Do you care what happens to them? It always struck
>>>me as odd that so many of the people who oppose abortion have no
>>>problem when unwanted children grow up and find themselves facing
>>>execution.
>>
>>What ever happened to personal responsibility?
>>
>>There's a difference between punishing the guilty and murdering the
>>innocent.<
>
>
> ----
>
> Hear Hear! - and, what's more, it's grossly offensive to suggest that some
> children be culled, simply because they 'might not be wanted' - that is a
> very dangerous pathway upon which to tread, as well as being insulting to
> every person who has overcome childhood disadvantages to live a happy and
> productive life.
>
> Besides, 'Right To Choose' zealots are motivated, not by concern for the
> unborn child, but by selfishness and promiscuity.
>

Amen!
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 11:52:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Peter wrote:

> "Pinky & Perky sing Cole Porter" <pigs@musicschool.com> wrote in message news:3pg9lcFaat5vU1@individual.net...
>
>>Besides, 'Right To Choose' zealots are motivated, not by concern for the
>>unborn child, but by selfishness and promiscuity.
>
>
> The state has no interest in unwanted pregnancies.
>
> If you're against abortion, don't have one.

What if the child is against abortion?
September 23, 2005 12:04:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ken Weitzel" <kweitzel@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:MXDYe.247986$Hk.114879@pd7tw1no...
>
>
> Peter wrote:
>
> > "Pinky & Perky sing Cole Porter" <pigs@musicschool.com> wrote in message news:3pg9lcFaat5vU1@individual.net...
> >
> >>Besides, 'Right To Choose' zealots are motivated, not by concern for the
> >>unborn child, but by selfishness and promiscuity.
> >
> >
> > The state has no interest in unwanted pregnancies.
> >
> > If you're against abortion, don't have one.
>
> What if the child is against abortion?

Tough luck. Mom calls the shots until the fetus is born.
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 12:04:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Peter wrote:
> "Ken Weitzel" <kweitzel@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:MXDYe.247986$Hk.114879@pd7tw1no...
>>
>>
>> Peter wrote:
>>
>>> "Pinky & Perky sing Cole Porter" <pigs@musicschool.com> wrote in
>>> message news:3pg9lcFaat5vU1@individual.net...
>>>
>>>> Besides, 'Right To Choose' zealots are motivated, not by concern
>>>> for the unborn child, but by selfishness and promiscuity.
>>>
>>>
>>> The state has no interest in unwanted pregnancies.
>>>
>>> If you're against abortion, don't have one.
>>
>> What if the child is against abortion?
>
> Tough luck. Mom calls the shots until the fetus is born.

Convenience trumps ethics, eh?
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 12:44:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Dean S. Lautermilch" <calldean@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:11j4938rs1g7t06@news.supernews.com...
> http://www.pbase.com/
>
We can be grateful that pbase cannot apparently display your wee snapshots.
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 12:51:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:GSBYe.12490$EH.4998@trnddc01...
>
>
> The photos themselves are mundane,

As is all of this halfwit's work. I have never seen a genuinely worthwhile
photograph amongst it.
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 12:56:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark Cutler" <mecutler@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:2005092210123716807%mecutler@mindspringcom...
>
> I am an attorney specializing in death penalty appeals. Most of my
> clients started out as unwanted children.

I should enjoy seeing some statistics on this assertion, which I suspect to
be quite untrue, and made for effect.
Gorm.
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 12:57:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:ngb4j1deeh2rjdu0vo1c5t32bhg6bl12vk@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 23:26:22 -0400, "Dean S. Lautermilch"
> <calldean@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> One of the commentors on the gallery is an idiot.
> If (as she said) the Administration was "turning a blind
> eye" they'd (the women) would have nothing to worry about.
> -Rich

Stick to what you're good at - patronisation.
September 23, 2005 1:18:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bob Harrington" <rch.NOS-PAM@blarg.net> wrote in message news:VbadnVT8d7i7hK7eRVn-gw@comcast.com...
> Peter wrote:
> > "Ken Weitzel" <kweitzel@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> > news:MXDYe.247986$Hk.114879@pd7tw1no...
> >>
> >>
> >> Peter wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Pinky & Perky sing Cole Porter" <pigs@musicschool.com> wrote in
> >>> message news:3pg9lcFaat5vU1@individual.net...
> >>>
> >>>> Besides, 'Right To Choose' zealots are motivated, not by concern
> >>>> for the unborn child, but by selfishness and promiscuity.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The state has no interest in unwanted pregnancies.
> >>>
> >>> If you're against abortion, don't have one.
> >>
> >> What if the child is against abortion?
> >
> > Tough luck. Mom calls the shots until the fetus is born.
>
> Convenience trumps ethics, eh?

Established rights of the mother to control her own reproductive
system trump any claimed, pretend rights of her fetus.

Bottom line, and that's why Roe v. Wade was a bad decision.
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 1:21:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gormless wrote:
>
> "Dean S. Lautermilch" <calldean@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:11j4938rs1g7t06@news.supernews.com...
> > http://www.pbase.com/
> >
> We can be grateful that pbase cannot apparently display your wee snapshots.

um, sadly I can still see them
--
Paul (And I'm, like, "yeah, whatever!")
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
September 23, 2005 1:25:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bill DeWitt" <Bill.DeWitt@adelphia.net> wrote in message news:rrWdncAWD-GUg67eRVn-pA@adelphia.com...
> Peter mentioned in passing :
> >
> > "Bill DeWitt" <Bill.DeWitt@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> > news:KqKdnZ6ltexFm67eRVn-ow@adelphia.com...
> >> Peter mentioned in passing :
> >>>
> >>> What's constructed is the idea that fetuses have any rights.
> >>
> >> They fit the biological definition of human and life. Just
> >> because some liberals have a restrictive legal theory about the
> >> definition does not mean their Right to Life is a constructed Right.
> >
> > Fetal rights are absolutely constructed.
>
> Repeating a bald assertion is the sign of an idealogue. Qualifies you
> for a filter.

To the contrary, the claim that a blob of cells inside a woman's
body has any constitutional or civil rights is a bald assertion, not
to mention a ridiculous one.
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 1:25:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 21:25:54 GMT, "Peter" <nospamplease@rsii.net>
wrote:

>"Bill DeWitt" <Bill.DeWitt@adelphia.net> wrote in message news:rrWdncAWD-GUg67eRVn-pA@adelphia.com...
>> Peter mentioned in passing :
>> >
>> > "Bill DeWitt" <Bill.DeWitt@adelphia.net> wrote in message
>> > news:KqKdnZ6ltexFm67eRVn-ow@adelphia.com...
>> >> Peter mentioned in passing :
>> >>>
>> >>> What's constructed is the idea that fetuses have any rights.
>> >>
>> >> They fit the biological definition of human and life. Just
>> >> because some liberals have a restrictive legal theory about the
>> >> definition does not mean their Right to Life is a constructed Right.
>> >
>> > Fetal rights are absolutely constructed.
>>
>> Repeating a bald assertion is the sign of an idealogue. Qualifies you
>> for a filter.
>
>To the contrary, the claim that a blob of cells inside a woman's
>body has any constitutional or civil rights is a bald assertion, not
>to mention a ridiculous one.
>

Answer this - if they (the so-called blob of cells) have no
constitutional or civil rights, why is it that when a pregnant woman
is murdered and the as yet to be born baby expires during the murder,
is the accused charged with 2 counts of murder? Could it be because
the law in that case considers them citizens? Go figure...
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 1:25:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <CjFYe.2783$QE1.2579@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
Peter <nospamplease@rsii.net> wrote:

> To the contrary, the claim that a blob of cells inside a woman's
> body has any constitutional or civil rights is a bald assertion, not
> to mention a ridiculous one.

You were once a blob of cells inside a woman's body. But then, blobs of
cells don't have arms and legs, blood vessels, a beating heart...or a
soul.
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 1:29:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <3pen22F9sea9U1@individual.net>,
Pinky & Perky sing Cole Porter <pigs@musicschool.com> wrote:
>
>"Dean S. Lautermilch" <calldean@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:11j4938rs1g7t06@news.supernews.com...
>> http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/roberts
>
>
>Don't these murderesses just love their disgusting street theatre?!

Judging by the quantity of replies, I must say you've managed a superb job
of trolling.
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 1:29:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <v_mdnabwBY0xmK7eRVn-vA@adelphia.com>,
Bill DeWitt <Bill.DeWitt@adelphia.net> wrote:
>Peter mentioned in passing :
>>
>> Well, that's what people do. They copulate.
>
> Interesting point of view. My favorite quote goes something like "The
>one thing that separates humans from the animals is our ability to deny the
>urge to copulate".

No, that's just what we tell ourselves when we can't get laid. HTH!
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 1:29:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <220920051255295353%rag@nospam.techline.com>,
Randall Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:

[abortion]

>It's about murdering babies.

You yanks are a funny breed, but most entertaining. Can we do the thing
about guns, or get strangely anal about alcohol next?
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 1:29:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <a8kb03-pu8.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org>, Chris Brown
<cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:

> In article <220920051255295353%rag@nospam.techline.com>,
> Randall Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
>
> [abortion]
>
> >It's about murdering babies.
>
> You yanks are a funny breed, but most entertaining. Can we do the thing
> about guns, or get strangely anal about alcohol next?

Oh, you're a limey? Loser Euro-trash.
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 2:15:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 23:26:22 -0400, "Dean S. Lautermilch"
<calldean@hotmail.com> wrote:

>http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/roberts
>
>

Any particular reason 2347 is backward?
September 23, 2005 3:51:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bill M" <bwmeck@removethis.starpower.net> wrote in message news:vta6j19telg630nkuvk8mskd746nkp8u9r@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 21:25:54 GMT, "Peter" <nospamplease@rsii.net>
> wrote:
>
> >"Bill DeWitt" <Bill.DeWitt@adelphia.net> wrote in message news:rrWdncAWD-GUg67eRVn-pA@adelphia.com...
> >> Peter mentioned in passing :
> >> >
> >> > "Bill DeWitt" <Bill.DeWitt@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:KqKdnZ6ltexFm67eRVn-ow@adelphia.com...
> >> >> Peter mentioned in passing :
> >> >>>
> >> >>> What's constructed is the idea that fetuses have any rights.
> >> >>
> >> >> They fit the biological definition of human and life. Just
> >> >> because some liberals have a restrictive legal theory about the
> >> >> definition does not mean their Right to Life is a constructed Right.
> >> >
> >> > Fetal rights are absolutely constructed.
> >>
> >> Repeating a bald assertion is the sign of an idealogue. Qualifies you
> >> for a filter.
> >
> >To the contrary, the claim that a blob of cells inside a woman's
> >body has any constitutional or civil rights is a bald assertion, not
> >to mention a ridiculous one.
> >
>
> Answer this - if they (the so-called blob of cells) have no
> constitutional or civil rights, why is it that when a pregnant woman
> is murdered and the as yet to be born baby expires during the murder,
> is the accused charged with 2 counts of murder? Could it be because
> the law in that case considers them citizens? Go figure...

As I mentioned earlier, Roe v. Wade was the first foot in the
door for the theocrats. The kinds of inane laws you refer to
are just one of the next ridiculous steps that stemmed from
Roe v. Wade's illogical decision. The next step, if you read
the current platform of the Republican Party is to assign 14th
Amendment equal protection rights to fetuses. Their stated
goal is no abortion, no exceptions, even in cases of rape,
incest or when the health or even life of the mother is
jeopardized by the pregnancy.

If you can support this policy in good conscience, more power
to you. Personally, if I had a daughter who became pregnant,
I'd want the decision left to her. Not George W. Bush.
September 23, 2005 4:00:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message news:220920051534105230%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <CjFYe.2783$QE1.2579@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> Peter <nospamplease@rsii.net> wrote:
>
> > To the contrary, the claim that a blob of cells inside a woman's
> > body has any constitutional or civil rights is a bald assertion, not
> > to mention a ridiculous one.
>
> You were once a blob of cells inside a woman's body. But then, blobs of
> cells don't have arms and legs, blood vessels, a beating heart...or a
> soul.

A fetus is certainly living, and human. So are sperm. How long do
you suppose it'll be before the theocrats declare masturbation to be
a felony?
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 4:00:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <rAHYe.2831$QE1.1808@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
Peter <nospamplease@rsii.net> wrote:

> A fetus is certainly living, and human. So are sperm. How long do
> you suppose it'll be before the theocrats declare masturbation to be
> a felony?

Only if you step on it afterwards.
!