homeagain wrote: ANSWER my questions......WHY is there a proliferation of MALE IMPOTENCY PILLS, but NOT MALE CONTRACEPTION PILLS???
Do NOT speak to me of abortion, when you can NOT answer the questions (SPECIFICALLY the above ?).......The "doctor" was an
abomination of humanity, THAT is a given.....I am PRO-CHOICE and for good reason.....MEN, rarely take the initiative to be "pro-active"
when it comes to a good lay.........(there ARE exceptions,of course) but generally, WOMAN have the "risk" and WOMAN have the
"say".....JMO
You really don't know the answer to this?
1st of all you are the owner of your own person. You have rights and you are in control of your body. You decide what surgical procedures to have or not have You decide what food you eat where you live and if you feel like having a drink or doing some drugs you are also in control of that as well. The law is pretty clear on what rights a woman has.
Per your quote
homeagain wrote: WOMAN have the "risk" and WOMAN have the
"say"
As you say you have the risk and you have the say. That means that you also have the say over who you spread your legs for.
Men have no rights over a pregnancy until a child is born. You alone decide whether or not to keep or terminate a pregnancy. If you are so worried about the risk keep your legs closed and the problem is solved.
[/b]
The BOLDED.......GUESS you did NOT read ALL of my posts......my choice of B.C. was sterilization.....(at 26 years old).....I leveled
the playing field. As I indicated before in another thread......I will NEVER be placed in a box and labeled.
There are females out there that are independent thinkers and do NOT allow others to dictate the direction of their lives. IF you
have not encountered those types of females.......guess YOU need to examine that problem. JMO
LadyJazzer wrote: Abortion is not infanticide... It is a legal procedure, and protected by the SCOTUS ruling in Roe v. Wade. And repeating it over and over again does not make it so.
The hypocrisy is astounding. You are arguing on a supreme court ruling for your rights but are so willing to trample on the constitutional rights of others.
homeagain wrote: ANSWER my questions......WHY is there a proliferation of MALE IMPOTENCY PILLS, but NOT MALE CONTRACEPTION PILLS???
Do NOT speak to me of abortion, when you can NOT answer the questions (SPECIFICALLY the above ?).......The "doctor" was an
abomination of humanity, THAT is a given.....I am PRO-CHOICE and for good reason.....MEN, rarely take the initiative to be "pro-active"
when it comes to a good lay.........(there ARE exceptions,of course) but generally, WOMAN have the "risk" and WOMAN have the
"say".....JMO
You really don't know the answer to this?
1st of all you are the owner of your own person. You have rights and you are in control of your body. You decide what surgical procedures to have or not have You decide what food you eat where you live and if you feel like having a drink or doing some drugs you are also in control of that as well. The law is pretty clear on what rights a woman has.
Per your quote
homeagain wrote: WOMAN have the "risk" and WOMAN have the
"say"
As you say you have the risk and you have the say. That means that you also have the say over who you spread your legs for.
Men have no rights over a pregnancy until a child is born. You alone decide whether or not to keep or terminate a pregnancy. If you are so worried about the risk keep your legs closed and the problem is solved.
[/b]
The BOLDED.......GUESS you did NOT read ALL of my posts......my choice of B.C. was sterilization.....(at 26 years old).....I leveled
the playing field. As I indicated before in another thread......I will NEVER be placed in a box and labeled.
There are females out there that are independent thinkers and do NOT allow others to dictate the direction of their lives. IF you
have not encountered those types of females.......guess YOU need to examine that problem. JMO
I did read that and I am glad you made a decision about your body that fit your lifestyle. I prefer not to run around not stick my pecker into everything it will fit in. In the end it is the same result. No unwanted consequences.
I love independent thinking women. As a matter of fact I married one. The world would be a boring place without them.
There's HOPE after all...........(I wish there were more like you,took me a l-o-n-g time to find my husband......we decided
up front, NO divorce......maybe murder, but NO divorce)......sure makes life NOT dull.
LadyJazzer wrote: Eleven children managed to escape at Sandy Hook while the murderer was changing magazines... In Tucson, Loughner was tackled after shooting Giffords, wounding 12 others, and killing 6, while trying to change magazines , thus saving more lives, whether it was 10 or 30...How many more in Aurora are alive because the assassin's 100-round drum jammed?
And the following people were unable to attend the president's address today:
New Town, CT
Charlotte Bacon 2/22/06
Daniel Barden 9/25/05
Rachel Davino 7/17/83
Olivia Engel 7/18/06
Josephine Gay 12/11/05
Ana Marquez-Greene 4/4/06
Dylan Hockley 3/8/06
Dawn Hocksprung 6/28/65
Madeleine Hsu 7/10/06
Catherine Hubbard 6/8/06
Chase Kowalski 10/31/05
Jesse Lewis 6/30/06
James Mattioli 3/22/06
Grace McDonnell 11/04/05
Anne Marie Murphy 7/25/60
Emilie Parker 5/12/06
Jack Pinto 5/6/06
Noah Pozner 11/20/06
Caroline Previdi 9/7/06
Jessica Rekos 5/10/06
Avielle Richman 10/17/06
Lauren Rousseau 6/82
Mary Sherlach 2/11/56
Victoria Soto 11/04/85
Benjamin Wheeler 9/12/06
Allison Wyatt 7/3/06
Aurora, CO
Jessica Ghawi, 24
Veronica Moser-Sullivan, 6
John Larimer, 27
Alexander Boik, 18
Jesse Childress, 29
Jonathan Blunk, 26
Rebecca Ann Wingo, 32
Alex Sullivan, 27
Gordon Cowden, 51
Micayla Medek, 23
Alexander Teves, 24
Matthew McQuinn, 27
"We regret their absence, but we understand the extenuating circumstances...."
And I could care less if the best you've got to try to deflect from that is one monster who botched a few abortions...
How many children escaped the abortion clinic? Or is that potential children
Good question, and wtf does Sandy Hook have to do with this case? Talk about deflection, this is the ultimate.
It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy
LadyJazzer wrote: Apparently, the issue of the "MIA media" has already had holes shot all through it by numerous posters, and with numerous links to prove it's a lie, it's appropriate to move on....
OK LJ and archer, since the Trayvon Martin case has already been covered (way more than this sick "doctor" btw), does that mean when June 10th rolls around and the trial begins, that there should be no need for more coverage of the story... should the media just "move on"? MSNBC acts like the Gosnell story doesn't exist, but you can bet your asses they will be all over Zimmerman. Just watch your little echo chamber in action.
Whatever captures the people's attention is what the media will give us.....right, left, or in-between, it's money that drives the networks ....if Fox thinks it's audience is more interested in Treyvon Martin than they are in Dr. Gosnell, than that is what they will cover....same with CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc......money Arlen, none of them are so politically motivated that they would let ideology trump the bottom line.
Does this mean you admit that MSNBC is no better than Fox... that this network is the proverbial "echo chamber" you and LJ like to use in describing Bob's forum? Do you agree that this network won't even mention the trial that's been going on since March 18th because it's views may be uncomfortable with this TRUTH?
It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy
LadyJazzer wrote: Abortion is not infanticide... It is a legal procedure, and protected by the SCOTUS ruling in Roe v. Wade. And repeating it over and over again does not make it so.
The hypocrisy is astounding. You are arguing on a supreme court ruling for your rights but are so willing to trample on the constitutional rights of others.
If you don't like guns don't buy one.
I don't have a problem with "guns"...I own one... I have a problem with assault weapons and large-capacity clips... And limitations on those things are not infringements on the Second Amendment.
No hypocrisy involved at all, really.
Abortion is also constitutionally protected... You don't like it?...Don't have one.
Rick wrote: [
Does this mean you admit that MSNBC is no better than Fox... that this network is the proverbial "echo chamber" you and LJ like to use in describing Bob's forum? Do you agree that this network won't even mention the trial that's been going on since March 18th because it's views may be uncomfortable with this TRUTH?
Wrong again ....
On Monday, MSNBC’s host of Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough, dug into the details of the horrific trial of Philadelphia-based late-term abortion provider Kermit Gosnell. Scarborough’s multifaceted coverage of the case, featuring both journalistic and editorial segments, was incisive, compelling, and responsible.
Say what you will about abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell, the man was something of a naturalist.
After four weeks of testimony at the 72-year-old doctor’s murder trial, the witnesses’ one consistent description of the interior of Gosnell’s Women’s Medical Society clinic at 3801-05 Lancaster Ave. was lots of plants and animals.
Photos of the four buildings that were combined into the West Philadelphia clinic show plants in almost every free space and countertop. There were one or more cats that had the run of the building and, dominating the waiting room, were huge glass tanks containing Gosnell’s collection of angel fish and turtles."........................
If you don't like guns don't buy one.
There's HOPE after all...........(I wish there were more like you,took me a l-o-n-g time to find my husband......we decided
