Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.atheism > #2186030 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-10-23 23:41 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-10-28 07:31 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 137 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.atheism
Atheism is Communism. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-23 23:41 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2016-10-23 23:42 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. hhyapster@gmail.com - 2016-10-24 00:08 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-10-24 09:20 +0200
Re: Atheism is Communism. Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-10-24 01:00 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 02:15 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 02:47 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 10:35 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 23:32 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-10-26 01:39 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> - 2016-10-26 18:17 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 02:19 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 02:47 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> - 2016-10-26 02:18 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-10-24 22:57 +0200
Re: Atheism is Communism. "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-25 10:06 +1100
Re: Atheism is Communism. Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-10-24 16:35 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Robert Bannister <robban@clubtelco.com> - 2016-10-25 08:12 +0800
Re: Atheism is Communism. Don Kresch <no@spam.org> - 2016-10-25 16:58 -0500
Re: Atheism is Communism. Kurt Nicklas <kurtnicklas@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 10:40 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 00:37 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> - 2016-10-24 05:13 -0400
Re: Atheism is Communism. Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-10-24 08:50 -0500
Re: Atheism is Communism. Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 07:11 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. hhyapster@gmail.com - 2016-10-24 17:57 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 07:13 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. default <default@defaulter.net> - 2016-10-24 09:05 -0400
Re: Atheism is Communism. Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 06:33 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. default <default@defaulter.net> - 2016-10-24 14:46 -0400
Re: Atheism is Communism. Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-10-24 08:54 -0500
Re: Atheism is Communism. Beam Me Up Scotty <Not-Sure-For-President@Idiocracy.gov> - 2016-10-24 10:15 -0400
Re: Atheism is Communism. Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 07:31 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 11:51 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. jackpinefirewe@gmail.com - 2016-10-25 20:38 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 21:12 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Wexford Eire <wexford.eire.1798@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 07:45 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 07:57 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2016-10-24 08:28 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 18:57 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Wexford Eire <wexford.eire.1798@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 11:20 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 19:28 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 22:12 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Wexford Eire <wexford.eire.1798@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 05:27 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 07:53 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. hhyapster@gmail.com - 2016-10-25 17:48 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 01:56 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-26 09:31 +1100
Re: Atheism is Communism. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-24 10:42 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. "Byker" <byker@do~rag.net> - 2016-10-24 13:50 -0500
Re: Atheism is Communism. Beam Me Up Scotty <Not-Sure-For-President@Idiocracy.gov> - 2016-10-24 14:58 -0400
Re: Atheism is Communism. Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 12:09 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Robert Bannister <robban@clubtelco.com> - 2016-10-25 08:13 +0800
Re: Atheism is Communism. hhyapster@gmail.com - 2016-10-24 18:02 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-25 22:36 +1100
Re: Atheism is Communism. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-25 08:31 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-25 11:00 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. hhyapster@gmail.com - 2016-10-25 17:51 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-10-26 01:18 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Robert Bannister <robban@clubtelco.com> - 2016-10-26 08:11 +0800
Re: Atheism is Communism. Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 17:41 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 17:41 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. hhyapster@gmail.com - 2016-10-25 17:50 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 10:26 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 14:20 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-10-26 01:31 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-27 09:24 +1100
Re: Atheism is Communism. Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> - 2016-10-26 18:14 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-10-26 22:21 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 00:17 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 02:28 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 03:00 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-28 09:09 +1100
Re: Atheism is Communism. Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-10-27 17:16 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 19:37 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-10-28 03:37 +0000
Re: Atheism is Communism. hhyapster@gmail.com - 2016-10-28 18:25 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-29 15:17 +1100
Re: Atheism is Communism. Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-10-28 21:28 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> - 2016-10-29 02:06 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 18:36 -0400
Re: Atheism is Communism. "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-29 11:15 +1100
Re: Atheism is Communism. Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 22:11 -0400
Re: Atheism is Communism. Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 10:36 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-29 11:11 +1100
Re: Atheism is Communism. Don Kresch <no@spam.org> - 2016-10-29 11:59 -0500
Re: Atheism is Communism. hhyapster@gmail.com - 2016-10-27 02:29 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-10-27 05:37 -0500
Re: Atheism is Communism. Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 07:25 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-10-28 02:21 +0000
Re: Atheism is Communism. Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-10-28 01:28 -0500
Re: Atheism is Communism. Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> - 2016-10-26 18:16 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 02:17 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 02:44 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 15:24 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2016-10-27 01:31 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 02:01 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 02:43 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 02:50 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 03:02 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 04:00 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-10-28 07:10 -0500
Re: Atheism is Communism. Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 06:36 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 09:57 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 10:31 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 09:55 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 10:29 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 12:20 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Kurt Nicklas <kurtnicklas@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 12:31 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 23:39 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> - 2016-10-29 02:03 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2016-10-29 22:19 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> - 2016-10-29 23:18 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Wexford Eire <wexford.eire.1798@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 06:51 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-10-28 14:53 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Tex <alesikar@mac.com> - 2016-10-28 12:46 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Kurt Nicklas <kurtnicklas@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 12:50 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Tex <alesikar@mac.com> - 2016-10-28 13:03 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 19:03 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Tex <alesikar@mac.com> - 2016-10-29 10:41 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> - 2016-10-29 11:06 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> - 2016-10-29 11:16 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Wexford Eire <wexford.eire.1798@gmail.com> - 2016-10-29 19:41 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-10-29 22:12 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> - 2016-10-29 23:18 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Wexford Eire <wexford.eire.1798@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 06:45 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 15:55 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> - 2016-10-29 23:24 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 23:42 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 19:16 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 19:22 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. hhyapster@gmail.com - 2016-10-29 02:48 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Don Kresch <no@spam.org> - 2016-10-29 12:00 -0500
Re: Atheism is Communism. Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-10-28 11:45 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2016-10-27 17:26 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 04:12 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 06:32 -0700
Re: Atheism is Communism. Tex <alesikar@mac.com> - 2016-10-28 07:31 -0700
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 17:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fc557829-2878-49c4-81c2-dd060f7bb083@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #2186803 |
On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 5:41:03 PM UTC-7, Joe Bruno wrote: > On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 5:11:10 PM UTC-7, Robert Bannister wrote: > > On 25/10/16 11:31 pm, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Sylvia Else wrote: > > >> > > >> On 24/10/2016 5:41 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > >>> Atheism is Communism. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Karl Marx once said: "Communism begins from the 'outset' with *Atheism*;..." > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> https://www.amazon.com/only-commie-commie-Bumper-Sticker/dp/B0078FWD2I > > >>> > > >> > > >> C contains A, so A = C? > > >> > > >> Sylvia. > > > > > > > > > Atheist religion here is very similar to > > > the commmnist atheist religion over there... > > > > > > There is no God, it is without question, it is without doubt..or you > > > go to Hell in Siberia. > > > > > Obviously, you haven't caught up with the news that the Russian Orthodox > > Church is now going strong. > > It was a powerful presence in Russia for centuries. > Now that the Communists are out of power and can no longer suppress it, it will come back bigtime. > > There are still some Communists in the Duma, the Russian > parliament, but they are a small minority. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hhyapster@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 17:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a89ba8f2-be3f-4fb1-b5f6-913f1a30f6c4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #2186544 |
On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 11:30:24 PM UTC+8, The Starmaker wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > On 24/10/2016 5:41 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Atheism is Communism. > > > > > > > > > Karl Marx once said: "Communism begins from the 'outset' with *Atheism*;..." > > > > > > > > > https://www.amazon.com/only-commie-commie-Bumper-Sticker/dp/B0078FWD2I > > > > > > > C contains A, so A = C? > > > > Sylvia. > > > Atheist religion here is very similar to > the commmnist atheist religion over there... Communist atheist, democrat atheists, socialist atheist, they are all atheists.... > > There is no God, it is without question, it is without doubt..or you > go to Hell in Siberia. The Siberia is for Mad Joe...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 10:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aa4bc2c8-f408-4f6c-8bb0-c284769f64bd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #2186030 |
On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 11:40:38 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > Atheism is Communism. > > > Karl Marx once said: "Communism begins from the 'outset' with *Atheism*;..." > > > https://www.amazon.com/only-commie-commie-Bumper-Sticker/dp/B0078FWD2I Funny, Nikita Khrushchev once remarked that Communism is the same philosophy as Christianity, the only difference is the substitution of the state for God. Seems about right to me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 14:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b28a93b2-c672-4af5-b933-cd0c640c30e5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #2186600 |
On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 10:26:39 AM UTC-7, Cloud Hobbit wrote: > On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 11:40:38 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > Atheism is Communism. > > > > > > Karl Marx once said: "Communism begins from the 'outset' with *Atheism*;..." > > > > > > https://www.amazon.com/only-commie-commie-Bumper-Sticker/dp/B0078FWD2I > > Funny, Nikita Khrushchev once remarked that Communism is the same philosophy as Christianity, the only difference is the substitution of the state for God. > > Seems about right to me. ROTFL! Is that why the Soviets persecuted Christians and closed their churches, you fucking idiot? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-26 01:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cce5f822-088e-43e0-9b56-625e0fa3315d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #2186716 |
On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 2:20:37 PM UTC-7, Joe Bruno wrote: > On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 10:26:39 AM UTC-7, Cloud Hobbit wrote: > > On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 11:40:38 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Atheism is Communism. > > > > > > > > > Karl Marx once said: "Communism begins from the 'outset' with *Atheism*;..." > > > > > > > > > https://www.amazon.com/only-commie-commie-Bumper-Sticker/dp/B0078FWD2I > > > > Funny, Nikita Khrushchev once remarked that Communism is the same philosophy as Christianity, the only difference is the substitution of the state for God. > > > > Seems about right to me. > > ROTFL! Is that why the Soviets persecuted Christians and closed their churches, you fucking idiot? > Yes of course it is, you fucking idiot. The Soviets could not afford to have any other authority but the State. Having people thinking god told them to overthrow them was not an option they wanted left open. Churches can be used to disseminate anti-government propaganda. It was part of their goal to control all information, they did the same thing with the press. The Soviets wanted everyone to think of themselves as equals, so they couldn't have religious people, like priests, or ministers or shamans shown any differently than the rest of the proletariat. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-27 09:24 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <e7cootFm2ucU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2186955 |
On 26/10/2016 19:31, Cloud Hobbit wrote: > On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 2:20:37 PM UTC-7, Joe Bruno wrote: >> ROTFL! Is that why the Soviets persecuted Christians and closed >> their churches, you fucking idiot? >> > Yes of course it is, you fucking idiot. The Soviets could not afford > to have any other authority but the State. Having people thinking > god told them to overthrow them was not an option they wanted left > open. Churches can be used to disseminate anti-government > propaganda. Look at Poland. There, the Catholic Church was a massively important focus for dissent and was materially responsible for the fall of the Socialist regime. Without the church, Lech Walesa and his trade union movement would not have succeeded.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-26 18:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87fa7fa2-694e-4f56-ac30-762412600540@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #2187228 |
On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 3:24:32 PM UTC-7, Alex W. wrote: > On 26/10/2016 19:31, Cloud Hobbit wrote: > > On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 2:20:37 PM UTC-7, Joe Bruno wrote: > > > >> ROTFL! Is that why the Soviets persecuted Christians and closed > >> their churches, you fucking idiot? > >> > > Yes of course it is, you fucking idiot. The Soviets could not afford > > to have any other authority but the State. Having people thinking > > god told them to overthrow them was not an option they wanted left > > open. Churches can be used to disseminate anti-government > > propaganda. > > Look at Poland. There, the Catholic Church was a massively important > focus for dissent and was materially responsible for the fall of the > Socialist regime. Without the church, Lech Walesa and his trade union > movement would not have succeeded. Indeed. Walesa was a very courageous man, one of the 20th century's notable heroes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-26 22:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hlwdjsd2-D03A70.22212826102016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #2187228 |
In article <e7cootFm2ucU1@mid.individual.net>, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On 26/10/2016 19:31, Cloud Hobbit wrote: > > On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 2:20:37 PM UTC-7, Joe Bruno wrote: > > > >> ROTFL! Is that why the Soviets persecuted Christians and closed > >> their churches, you fucking idiot? > >> > > Yes of course it is, you fucking idiot. The Soviets could not afford > > to have any other authority but the State. Having people thinking > > god told them to overthrow them was not an option they wanted left > > open. Churches can be used to disseminate anti-government > > propaganda. > > Look at Poland. There, the Catholic Church was a massively important > focus for dissent and was materially responsible for the fall of the > Socialist regime. Without the church, Lech Walesa and his trade union > movement would not have succeeded. And now the women of Poland are standing up to the Church and the government who are trying to take away women's rights. -- JD I'm a "nasty woman" and I vote.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-27 00:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <76327232-828f-4e3f-a9c9-de739e07b6e4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #2187410 |
On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 10:21:35 PM UTC-7, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > In article <e7cootFm2ucU1@mid.individual.net>, > "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > On 26/10/2016 19:31, Cloud Hobbit wrote: > > > On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 2:20:37 PM UTC-7, Joe Bruno wrote: > > > > > > >> ROTFL! Is that why the Soviets persecuted Christians and closed > > >> their churches, you fucking idiot? > > >> > > > Yes of course it is, you fucking idiot. The Soviets could not afford > > > to have any other authority but the State. Having people thinking > > > god told them to overthrow them was not an option they wanted left > > > open. Churches can be used to disseminate anti-government > > > propaganda. > > > > Look at Poland. There, the Catholic Church was a massively important > > focus for dissent and was materially responsible for the fall of the > > Socialist regime. Without the church, Lech Walesa and his trade union > > movement would not have succeeded. > > > And now the women of Poland are standing up to the Church and the > government who are trying to take away women's rights. You mean abortion??? 1. That fetus inside the woman is not piece of trash, but a human life 2.Just because it is inside the woman does not mean it is her personal property 3.If she did not want to get pregnant, she should have used contraceptives. 4.Don't give me the "I can do anything I want with my body" bullshit. There have been legal restrictions on a human's use of their body for centuries. Prostitution is illegal and so is use of heroin,cocaine, methamphetamines and opium. > > -- >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-27 02:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e8a9c792-6df7-431f-ba88-7e78a3a65c76@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #2187443 |
On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 12:17:31 AM UTC-7, Joe Bruno wrote: > On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 10:21:35 PM UTC-7, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > > In article <e7cootFm2ucU1@mid.individual.net>, > > "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > On 26/10/2016 19:31, Cloud Hobbit wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 2:20:37 PM UTC-7, Joe Bruno wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> ROTFL! Is that why the Soviets persecuted Christians and closed > > > >> their churches, you fucking idiot? > > > >> > > > > Yes of course it is, you fucking idiot. The Soviets could not afford > > > > to have any other authority but the State. Having people thinking > > > > god told them to overthrow them was not an option they wanted left > > > > open. Churches can be used to disseminate anti-government > > > > propaganda. > > > > > > Look at Poland. There, the Catholic Church was a massively important > > > focus for dissent and was materially responsible for the fall of the > > > Socialist regime. Without the church, Lech Walesa and his trade union > > > movement would not have succeeded. > > > > > > And now the women of Poland are standing up to the Church and the > > government who are trying to take away women's rights. > > You mean abortion??? > > 1. That fetus inside the woman is not piece of trash, but a human life > It's a potential life. > 2.Just because it is inside the woman does not mean it is her personal > property > Why not? Who else could rationally claim what is inside of her? > 3.If she did not want to get pregnant, she should have used contraceptives. > Sometimes contraceptives fail. Condoms break. Birth control pills are 98% effective,that means they fail 2% ofthe time. > 4.Don't give me the "I can do anything I want with my body" bullshit. > There have been legal restrictions on a human's use of their body > for centuries. Prostitution is illegal and so is use of heroin,cocaine, > methamphetamines and opium. Just because there have been laws against certain behaviors does not make them sensible. The state has no interest in what somebody does with their body. If your body is not your property, then who does it belong to? Either a person is the owner of their body or the state is. You can't have it both ways. Tradition is not a good enough reason to take away a woman's right to her own body. > > > > -- > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-27 03:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10bf6c66-3f48-4d16-9f0e-58d2d71b6732@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #2187482 |
On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 2:28:49 AM UTC-7, Cloud Hobbit wrote: > On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 12:17:31 AM UTC-7, Joe Bruno wrote: > > On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 10:21:35 PM UTC-7, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > > > In article <e7cootFm2ucU1@mid.individual.net>, > > > "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > On 26/10/2016 19:31, Cloud Hobbit wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 2:20:37 PM UTC-7, Joe Bruno wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >> ROTFL! Is that why the Soviets persecuted Christians and closed > > > > >> their churches, you fucking idiot? > > > > >> > > > > > Yes of course it is, you fucking idiot. The Soviets could not afford > > > > > to have any other authority but the State. Having people thinking > > > > > god told them to overthrow them was not an option they wanted left > > > > > open. Churches can be used to disseminate anti-government > > > > > propaganda. > > > > > > > > Look at Poland. There, the Catholic Church was a massively important > > > > focus for dissent and was materially responsible for the fall of the > > > > Socialist regime. Without the church, Lech Walesa and his trade union > > > > movement would not have succeeded. > > > > > > > > > And now the women of Poland are standing up to the Church and the > > > government who are trying to take away women's rights. > > > > You mean abortion??? > > > > 1. That fetus inside the woman is not piece of trash, but a human life > > > It's a potential life. > > > 2.Just because it is inside the woman does not mean it is her personal > > property > > > Why not? Who else could rationally claim what is inside of her? It was made by the joining of her egg and a man's sperm. It is partly his. If someone took a knife and stabbed her in the belly, killing the fetus, that would be a crime called murder. What difference does it make if an abortionist does the killing? > > > 3.If she did not want to get pregnant, she should have used contraceptives. > > > > Sometimes contraceptives fail. Condoms break. Birth control pills are 98% effective,that means they fail 2% ofthe time. Show me the women who got pregnant while using contraceptives. > > > 4.Don't give me the "I can do anything I want with my body" bullshit. > > There have been legal restrictions on a human's use of their body > > for centuries. Prostitution is illegal and so is use of heroin,cocaine, > > methamphetamines and opium. > > Just because there have been laws against certain behaviors does not make them sensible. We are discussing the law, not your fucked up notions of what is "sensible". The state has no interest in what somebody does with their body. HAHAHAHAHA! Is that why assisted suicide is illegal? The state has a moral interest in preventing death by illegal drug use and in preventing prostitution. If your body is not your property, then who does it belong to? Either a person is the owner of their body or the state is. You can't have it both ways. Really?So you would legalize the use of heroin, cocaine, opium, methamphetamines and crack? You would make prostitution legal all over the world? You want to allow people to ruin their lives and, in the process, ruin the lives of their children and the victims of the crimes they commit to get the money to buy illegal drugs? Thank God you have no legal authority. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-28 09:09 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <e7fc98Fai5pU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2187482 |
On 27/10/2016 20:28, Cloud Hobbit wrote: > On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 12:17:31 AM UTC-7, Joe Bruno wrote: >> On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 10:21:35 PM UTC-7, Jeanne Douglas >> wrote: >>> In article <e7cootFm2ucU1@mid.individual.net>, "Alex W." >>> <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> On 26/10/2016 19:31, Cloud Hobbit wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 2:20:37 PM UTC-7, Joe Bruno >>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>> ROTFL! Is that why the Soviets persecuted Christians and >>>>>> closed their churches, you fucking idiot? >>>>>> >>>>> Yes of course it is, you fucking idiot. The Soviets could >>>>> not afford to have any other authority but the State. Having >>>>> people thinking god told them to overthrow them was not an >>>>> option they wanted left open. Churches can be used to >>>>> disseminate anti-government propaganda. >>>> >>>> Look at Poland. There, the Catholic Church was a massively >>>> important focus for dissent and was materially responsible for >>>> the fall of the Socialist regime. Without the church, Lech >>>> Walesa and his trade union movement would not have succeeded. >>> >>> >>> And now the women of Poland are standing up to the Church and the >>> government who are trying to take away women's rights. >> >> You mean abortion??? >> >> 1. That fetus inside the woman is not piece of trash, but a human >> life >> > It's a potential life. .... up to the point where the foetus is viable outside its mother's body. Then potential transforms into actuality. > >> 2.Just because it is inside the woman does not mean it is her >> personal property >> > Why not? Who else could rationally claim what is inside of her? The father-to-be would have at least a moral claim, if he is willing to take the responsibility. And if not a moral claim to the baby-to-be, then at the very least a claim to be consulted in the decision. > >> 3.If she did not want to get pregnant, she should have used >> contraceptives. >> > > Sometimes contraceptives fail. Condoms break. Birth control pills > are 98% effective,that means they fail 2% ofthe time. ... and sometimes, men do not hear when the woman says "no". > >> 4.Don't give me the "I can do anything I want with my body" >> bullshit. There have been legal restrictions on a human's use of >> their body for centuries. Prostitution is illegal and so is use of >> heroin,cocaine, methamphetamines and opium. > > Just because there have been laws against certain behaviors does not > make them sensible. The state has no interest in what somebody does > with their body. If your body is not your property, then who does it > belong to? Either a person is the owner of their body or the state > is. You can't have it both ways. Your argument implies that ownership is total, absolute, unencumbered by responsibility towards others. I would like to see something more than this mere assertion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-27 17:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hlwdjsd2-3DBA84.17161427102016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #2187817 |
In article <e7fc98Fai5pU2@mid.individual.net>, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On 27/10/2016 20:28, Cloud Hobbit wrote: > > On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 12:17:31 AM UTC-7, Joe Bruno wrote: > >> On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 10:21:35 PM UTC-7, Jeanne Douglas > >> wrote: > >>> In article <e7cootFm2ucU1@mid.individual.net>, "Alex W." > >>> <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 26/10/2016 19:31, Cloud Hobbit wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 2:20:37 PM UTC-7, Joe Bruno > >>>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>> ROTFL! Is that why the Soviets persecuted Christians and > >>>>>> closed their churches, you fucking idiot? > >>>>>> > >>>>> Yes of course it is, you fucking idiot. The Soviets could > >>>>> not afford to have any other authority but the State. Having > >>>>> people thinking god told them to overthrow them was not an > >>>>> option they wanted left open. Churches can be used to > >>>>> disseminate anti-government propaganda. > >>>> > >>>> Look at Poland. There, the Catholic Church was a massively > >>>> important focus for dissent and was materially responsible for > >>>> the fall of the Socialist regime. Without the church, Lech > >>>> Walesa and his trade union movement would not have succeeded. > >>> > >>> > >>> And now the women of Poland are standing up to the Church and the > >>> government who are trying to take away women's rights. > >> > >> You mean abortion??? > >> > >> 1. That fetus inside the woman is not piece of trash, but a human > >> life > >> > > It's a potential life. > > .... up to the point where the foetus is viable outside its mother's > body. Then potential transforms into actuality. > > > > > >> 2.Just because it is inside the woman does not mean it is her > >> personal property > >> > > Why not? Who else could rationally claim what is inside of her? > > The father-to-be would have at least a moral claim, if he is willing to > take the responsibility. And if not a moral claim to the baby-to-be, > then at the very least a claim to be consulted in the decision. Sure, if he can carry the fetus, he can have a say. -- JD I'm a "nasty woman" and I vote.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-27 19:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9e5a794f-2e2d-46d0-8356-216ee3a6a3c5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #2187892 |
On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 5:16:21 PM UTC-7, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > In article <e7fc98Fai5pU2@mid.individual.net>, > "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > On 27/10/2016 20:28, Cloud Hobbit wrote: > > > On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 12:17:31 AM UTC-7, Joe Bruno wrote: > > >> On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 10:21:35 PM UTC-7, Jeanne Douglas > > >> wrote: > > >>> In article <e7cootFm2ucU1@mid.individual.net>, "Alex W." > > >>> <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> On 26/10/2016 19:31, Cloud Hobbit wrote: > > >>>>> On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 2:20:37 PM UTC-7, Joe Bruno > > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>>> ROTFL! Is that why the Soviets persecuted Christians and > > >>>>>> closed their churches, you fucking idiot? > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> Yes of course it is, you fucking idiot. The Soviets could > > >>>>> not afford to have any other authority but the State. Having > > >>>>> people thinking god told them to overthrow them was not an > > >>>>> option they wanted left open. Churches can be used to > > >>>>> disseminate anti-government propaganda. > > >>>> > > >>>> Look at Poland. There, the Catholic Church was a massively > > >>>> important focus for dissent and was materially responsible for > > >>>> the fall of the Socialist regime. Without the church, Lech > > >>>> Walesa and his trade union movement would not have succeeded. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> And now the women of Poland are standing up to the Church and the > > >>> government who are trying to take away women's rights. > > >> > > >> You mean abortion??? > > >> > > >> 1. That fetus inside the woman is not piece of trash, but a human > > >> life > > >> > > > It's a potential life. > > > > .... up to the point where the foetus is viable outside its mother's > > body. Then potential transforms into actuality. > > > > > > > > > >> 2.Just because it is inside the woman does not mean it is her > > >> personal property > > >> > > > Why not? Who else could rationally claim what is inside of her? > > > > The father-to-be would have at least a moral claim, if he is willing to > > take the responsibility. And if not a moral claim to the baby-to-be, > > then at the very least a claim to be consulted in the decision. > > Sure, if he can carry the fetus, he can have a say. > OH? Is that your ruling, Justice Jeanne??? Obviously, you are completely ignorant of Family law. The child cannot be put up for adoption without the father's consent. That means he has equal rights in the matter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-28 03:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9qr6nk.a7g.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #2187964 |
Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 5:16:21 PM UTC-7, Jeanne Douglas wrote: >> In article <e7fc98Fai5pU2@mid.individual.net>, >> "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> On 27/10/2016 20:28, Cloud Hobbit wrote: >>>> On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 12:17:31 AM UTC-7, Joe Bruno wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 10:21:35 PM UTC-7, Jeanne Douglas >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> In article <e7cootFm2ucU1@mid.individual.net>, "Alex W." >>>>>> <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 26/10/2016 19:31, Cloud Hobbit wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 2:20:37 PM UTC-7, Joe Bruno >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ROTFL! Is that why the Soviets persecuted Christians and >>>>>>>>> closed their churches, you fucking idiot? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes of course it is, you fucking idiot. The Soviets could >>>>>>>> not afford to have any other authority but the State. Having >>>>>>>> people thinking god told them to overthrow them was not an >>>>>>>> option they wanted left open. Churches can be used to >>>>>>>> disseminate anti-government propaganda. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Look at Poland. There, the Catholic Church was a massively >>>>>>> important focus for dissent and was materially responsible for >>>>>>> the fall of the Socialist regime. Without the church, Lech >>>>>>> Walesa and his trade union movement would not have succeeded. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> And now the women of Poland are standing up to the Church and the >>>>>> government who are trying to take away women's rights. >>>>> >>>>> You mean abortion??? >>>>> >>>>> 1. That fetus inside the woman is not piece of trash, but a human >>>>> life >>>>> >>>> It's a potential life. >>> >>> .... up to the point where the foetus is viable outside its mother's >>> body. Then potential transforms into actuality. >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> 2.Just because it is inside the woman does not mean it is her >>>>> personal property >>>>> >>>> Why not? Who else could rationally claim what is inside of her? >>> >>> The father-to-be would have at least a moral claim, if he is willing to >>> take the responsibility. And if not a moral claim to the baby-to-be, >>> then at the very least a claim to be consulted in the decision. >> >> Sure, if he can carry the fetus, he can have a say. >> > OH? Is that your ruling, Justice Jeanne??? > Obviously, you are completely ignorant of Family law. > > The child cannot be put up for adoption without the father's consent. > That means he has equal rights in the matter. Not in every state. If the woman is unmarried, the claimed babies father has no legal rights. Since you are giving legal advice please state whichnbar associate you belong. That right you claim were versed in Military law. But then your story about the length time you spent at book camp,is a little far fetched. -- Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms. John Cleese on Stupidity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hhyapster@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-28 18:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2f915d40-794c-444b-abef-4441a260845a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #2187964 |
On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 10:37:16 AM UTC+8, Joe Bruno wrote: > On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 5:16:21 PM UTC-7, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > > In article <e7fc98Fai5pU2@mid.individual.net>, > > "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > On 27/10/2016 20:28, Cloud Hobbit wrote: > > > > On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 12:17:31 AM UTC-7, Joe Bruno wrote: > > > >> On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 10:21:35 PM UTC-7, Jeanne Douglas > > > >> wrote: > > > >>> In article <e7cootFm2ucU1@mid.individual.net>, "Alex W." > > > >>> <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> On 26/10/2016 19:31, Cloud Hobbit wrote: > > > >>>>> On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 2:20:37 PM UTC-7, Joe Bruno > > > >>>>> wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>>> ROTFL! Is that why the Soviets persecuted Christians and > > > >>>>>> closed their churches, you fucking idiot? > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> Yes of course it is, you fucking idiot. The Soviets could > > > >>>>> not afford to have any other authority but the State. Having > > > >>>>> people thinking god told them to overthrow them was not an > > > >>>>> option they wanted left open. Churches can be used to > > > >>>>> disseminate anti-government propaganda. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Look at Poland. There, the Catholic Church was a massively > > > >>>> important focus for dissent and was materially responsible for > > > >>>> the fall of the Socialist regime. Without the church, Lech > > > >>>> Walesa and his trade union movement would not have succeeded. > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> And now the women of Poland are standing up to the Church and the > > > >>> government who are trying to take away women's rights. > > > >> > > > >> You mean abortion??? > > > >> > > > >> 1. That fetus inside the woman is not piece of trash, but a human > > > >> life > > > >> > > > > It's a potential life. > > > > > > .... up to the point where the foetus is viable outside its mother's > > > body. Then potential transforms into actuality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 2.Just because it is inside the woman does not mean it is her > > > >> personal property > > > >> > > > > Why not? Who else could rationally claim what is inside of her? > > > > > > The father-to-be would have at least a moral claim, if he is willing to > > > take the responsibility. And if not a moral claim to the baby-to-be, > > > then at the very least a claim to be consulted in the decision. > > > > Sure, if he can carry the fetus, he can have a say. > > > OH? Is that your ruling, Justice Jeanne??? > Obviously, you are completely ignorant of Family law. What has Family Law got to do with fetus? Does it own the woman? > > The child cannot be put up for adoption without the father's consent. > That means he has equal rights in the matter. The issue is fetus here, not a born child, Mad Joe.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-29 15:17 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <e7im72F3ma5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2187892 |
On 28/10/2016 11:16, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > In article <e7fc98Fai5pU2@mid.individual.net>, > "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> On 27/10/2016 20:28, Cloud Hobbit wrote: >>> >>>> 2.Just because it is inside the woman does not mean it is her >>>> personal property >>>> >>> Why not? Who else could rationally claim what is inside of her? >> >> The father-to-be would have at least a moral claim, if he is willing to >> take the responsibility. And if not a moral claim to the baby-to-be, >> then at the very least a claim to be consulted in the decision. > > Sure, if he can carry the fetus, he can have a say. > If you want it that way, then we also have to abolish all legal claims to child support. If you insist that it is her decision, and hers alone, then she should also bear the consequences alone.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-28 21:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hlwdjsd2-BFD3E9.21280928102016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #2188543 |
In article <e7im72F3ma5U1@mid.individual.net>, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On 28/10/2016 11:16, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > > In article <e7fc98Fai5pU2@mid.individual.net>, > > "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > >> On 27/10/2016 20:28, Cloud Hobbit wrote: > > > >>> > >>>> 2.Just because it is inside the woman does not mean it is her > >>>> personal property > >>>> > >>> Why not? Who else could rationally claim what is inside of her? > >> > >> The father-to-be would have at least a moral claim, if he is willing to > >> take the responsibility. And if not a moral claim to the baby-to-be, > >> then at the very least a claim to be consulted in the decision. > > > > Sure, if he can carry the fetus, he can have a say. > > > > If you want it that way, then we also have to abolish all legal claims > to child support. If you insist that it is her decision, and hers > alone, then she should also bear the consequences alone. It's a legal nightmare, but it's still her body and nobody can tell her what to do with it. -- JD I'm a "nasty woman" and I vote.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-29 02:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a198f62c-377f-4957-ab3c-8d8ba3ac6ca6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #2188543 |
On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 9:17:42 PM UTC-7, Alex W. wrote: > On 28/10/2016 11:16, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > > In article <e7fc98Fai5pU2@mid.individual.net>, > > "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > >> On 27/10/2016 20:28, Cloud Hobbit wrote: > > > >>> > >>>> 2.Just because it is inside the woman does not mean it is her > >>>> personal property > >>>> > >>> Why not? Who else could rationally claim what is inside of her? > >> > >> The father-to-be would have at least a moral claim, if he is willing to > >> take the responsibility. And if not a moral claim to the baby-to-be, > >> then at the very least a claim to be consulted in the decision. > > > > Sure, if he can carry the fetus, he can have a say. > > > > If you want it that way, then we also have to abolish all legal claims > to child support. If you insist that it is her decision, and hers > alone, then she should also bear the consequences alone. In every state in the USA, the mother cannot put her child up for adoption without the father's consent. In a number of divorce cases, the Father has been awarded sole custody of the child. His rights are equal to hers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-28 18:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <b6i71chq61esl59dqrhnampmmtpsvmevht@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2187817 |
On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 09:09:44 +1100, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
>On 27/10/2016 20:28, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 12:17:31 AM UTC-7, Joe Bruno wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 10:21:35 PM UTC-7, Jeanne Douglas
>>> wrote:
>>>> In article <e7cootFm2ucU1@mid.individual.net>, "Alex W."
>>>> <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 26/10/2016 19:31, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 2:20:37 PM UTC-7, Joe Bruno
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> ROTFL! Is that why the Soviets persecuted Christians and
>>>>>>> closed their churches, you fucking idiot?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes of course it is, you fucking idiot. The Soviets could
>>>>>> not afford to have any other authority but the State. Having
>>>>>> people thinking god told them to overthrow them was not an
>>>>>> option they wanted left open. Churches can be used to
>>>>>> disseminate anti-government propaganda.
>>>>>
>>>>> Look at Poland. There, the Catholic Church was a massively
>>>>> important focus for dissent and was materially responsible for
>>>>> the fall of the Socialist regime. Without the church, Lech
>>>>> Walesa and his trade union movement would not have succeeded.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And now the women of Poland are standing up to the Church and the
>>>> government who are trying to take away women's rights.
>>>
>>> You mean abortion???
>>>
>>> 1. That fetus inside the woman is not piece of trash, but a human
>>> life
>>>
>> It's a potential life.
>
>.... up to the point where the foetus is viable outside its mother's
>body. Then potential transforms into actuality.
>
>
>>
>>> 2.Just because it is inside the woman does not mean it is her
>>> personal property
>>>
>> Why not? Who else could rationally claim what is inside of her?
>
>The father-to-be would have at least a moral claim, if he is willing to
>take the responsibility. And if not a moral claim to the baby-to-be,
>then at the very least a claim to be consulted in the decision.
In this country a legal, if not a moral, claim is in place: fathers
interested in neither matrimony or progeny are chargeable in paternity
suits to provide child support for the sprog until (I think) it is 18.
Given the accuracy and ubiquity of DNA testing these days, this is a
pretty tough charge to beat. When I was a lad, all it took were three
friends willing to perjure themselves by claiming to have had sex with
the plaintiff around the time in question, Since this perjury is very
little different from run-of-the-mill empty male bragging in locker
rooms, the three witnesses were not all that hard to find.
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.atheism
csiph-web