 |
|
Wow.
Posted on: August 8, 2017 at 15:57:27 CT
JeffB MU
Posts:
69599
Member For:
20.85 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
You do not believe that Jesus Christ is God, but why the need to use His name in vain? Would you use Muhammad's name as an expletive? Buddha's, or Moses'?
raskolnikov: In your response yesterday, you claim A) the Pill doesn't prevent pregnancies and then B) killing of innocent human being. Sperm and egg do not comprise an innocent human being.
You are confused, which shouldn't be surprising, I suppose. I never said that "the Pill doesn't prevent pregnancies", but rather that often it does not. That should be rather obvious, given the number of unintended pregnancies on women using the pill.
The medical warnings & instructions inserts that come with "the pill" specifically state that there are 3 modes that "the pill" works. 1. It thickens the cervical mucous, making it more difficult for the sperm to reach the oocyte (aka "egg"). That mode of action would in fact be truly "contraceptive". 2. It prevents ovulation. That too would be a mode of "contraception". 3. It causes the endometrial wall in the woman's womb to become thinner and less hospitable to a zygote (aka already conceived human being) from attaching to her womb, receiving nourishment from it and from growing. In many such instances, the zygote will pass out of the woman's uterous and be expelled. In other words, the recently conceived child travels down the fallopian tube, cannot attach to his or her mother's womb, is passed out of her unnoticed, and dies. -- It is only when all 3 modes of action are "unsuccessful" that the "contraceptive" "fails"... the woman ovulates despite the suppression, the sperm swims through the thicker mucous, and the child attaches to his or her mother's womb despite the inhospitable environment caused by the class 4 carcinogen his/her mother is taking.
"All we heard in 08 election was that Obama had not done dyck as a Senator and you claim he fought tooth and nail?"
Your assertion that Obama did NOT fight tooth and nail to prevent The Unborn Child Protection Act legislation from passing, despite its overwhelming support in the Senate, even though he was the chairman of the committee that would not let it out to see the light of day in a Senate vote, and all of the other evidence to the contrary is quite absurd, even for you.
That his opponents brought up that he did not sponsor any significant legislation that passed is not even a nearly relevant counterargument.
This is a silly discussion as long as you remain so deep in your bunker.
Your lack of a valid argument is not compensated for by gratuitous insults.
If you want to prevent abortions - then prevent pregnancies.
and speaking of invalid arguments, this one boils down to, "You can't complain about the often brutal slaughter of innocent human beings unless you prevent them from existing in the first place."
Your claim is that all of a sudden in human history due to the pill, women were suddently sex objects and you further blame the pill for family breakdowns and divorce spike? Wow.
There were two competing hypotheses when the debate was raging over whether or not to legalize contraception in the U.S. (Btw, the Comstock Laws against artificial contraception were passed by Protestants and Comstock was a Protestant.) One of those hypotheses was the one by Margaret Sanger, that artificial contraception would enhance marriages and reduce divorce because it would eliminate the strain on marriages caused by large numbers of children. She also promised that the numbers of teen pregnancies and indeed of all unwanted pregnancies would be eliminated or at least drastically reduced. Her rallying cry was "Every Child a Wanted Child" .
Pope Paul VI, on the other hand, warned that this would lead to the objectification of women, the breakdown of families, and a drastic increase in adultery and promiscuity.
In the scientific world, hypotheses are verified or rejected by the observed results. The results clearly and undeniably followed Pope Paul VI's predictions and just as clearly and Margaret Sanger's predictions were undeniably refuted and contradicted by the results that followed.
"Wow" should be the reaction to YOUR reaction. Despite the undeniable results you cling to the hypothesis that was clearly shown to be false... and make fun of the one that was shown to be true.
Sure it didn't also cause the downing of the Challenger and kidnapping of the Lindgergh baby?
Again the attempt to substitute absurdity for any sort of valid argument to back up your invalid opinions.
You claim Obama and HRC had "racist eugenic, evil policies including slaughter of INNOCENT HUNAN BEINGS
Well, the evidence for that claim is pretty overwhelming. Margaret Sanger's books are still extant, as are articles from her magazine and other writings. In her autobiography she even brags about how much support she got at a Ku Klux Klan meeting when she was the guest speaker, and how many additional invitations she got to other meetings.
Sanger had Nazis write articles for her magazine and spoke admiringly of the Nazi eugenics goals, and they spoke admiringly of her and were influenced by her. It wasn't until the atrocities of the Nazis came out after the war that Sanger and her wealthy eugenicist bankrollers quickly distanced themselves from the Nazis in the furor that ensued. That's when she changed the name of her organization to Planned Parenthood to try and hide from the stench.
I've posted these before, and you have always ignored the clear and undeniable evidence, but I'll post a few links for you again:
*Planned Parenthood's Racism
http://bit.ly/PPRacism
Planned Parenthood Kills More Black Babies in 4 days than the KKK did in its entire existence
http://bit.ly/LynchingIsForAmateurs
Black Genocide
http://bit.ly/BGenocide
Margaret Sanger speaks to the KKK
http://bit.ly/KKK-PP
(fetus is not a human being)
Denying the facts does not change the facts regardless of how many times you lie. That a human fetus is a human being is an undeniable scientific fact, as has been shown to you many times.
When Does Human Life Begin?
http://bit.ly/aLife
lifeissues | When do human beings (normally) begin?
http://bit.ly/OKbMHZ
as a means to carry out EVIL AGENDA of ridding us of "inferior races".
Once again, Margaret Sanger left a paper trail of books, articles and speeches. Her agenda was undeniable. Planned Parenthood, which she founded, has publicly stated that they are carrying out her agenda. Their highest award is the "Margaret Sanger Award", and some 80% of their clinics are in minority neighborhoods, and the reason they push so hard for government funding of their slaughterhouses is that they are targeting poor people especially. Wealthy eugenecists who are their biggest supporters still have the same goals as well. They don't want a lot of kids and they certainly don't want to be overwhelmed by the "Spawning" and breeding of those they consider inferior.
excerpt from: Planned Parenthood's Racism
http://bit.ly/PPRacism
Margaret Sanger said about her 1939 , "We do not want
word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and
the minister is the man who can straighten out the idea if it ever
occurs to any of their more rebellious members." [1]
Clarence Gamble, president of the American Eugenics Research
Association, said, "There is a great danger that we will fail because
the Negroes think it a plan for extermination. Hence lets appear to
let the colored run it as we appear to let [the] south do the
conference in Atlanta."[2] Under this policy, Planned Parenthood of
America hired a full-time "Negro Consultant" in 1944.[3]
The entire operation [Sanger's 1939 Negro Project] then was a ruse--a
manipulative attempt to get Blacks to cooperate in their own
elimination.
The project was quite successful. Its genocidal intentions were
carefully camouflaged beneath several layers of condescending
social-service rhetoric and organizational expertise. . . Soon
clinics throughout the South were distributing contraceptives to
Blacks and [4]*
In a 1926 speech at Vassar, Sanger said the nation needed to follow
the "drastic immigration laws" of 1924 with methods "to cut down on
the rapid multiplication of the unfit and undesirable at home."[5]
Jesus Christ, grow the fck up.
More blasphemy in using God's name in vain, and assorted expletives are not viable defenses of the indefensible... aka your support of those continuing the ongoing brutal slaughter of tens of millions of innocent human beings.
raskolnikov: In your response yesterday, you claim A) the Pill doesn't prevent pregnancies and then B) killing of innocent human being. Sperm and egg do not comprise an innocent human being.
You are confused, which shouldn't be surprising, I suppose. I never said that "the Pill doesn't prevent pregnancies", but rather that often it does not. That should be rather obvious, given the number of unintended pregnancies on women using the pill.
The medical warnings & instructions inserts that come with "the pill" specifically state that there are 3 modes that "the pill" works. 1. It thickens the cervical mucous, making it more difficult for the sperm to reach the oocyte (aka "egg"). That mode of action would in fact be truly "contraceptive". 2. It prevents ovulation. That too would be a mode of "contraception". 3. It causes the endometrial wall in the woman's womb to become thinner and less hospitable to a zygote (aka already conceived human being) from attaching to her womb, receiving nourishment from it and from growing. In many such instances, the zygote will pass out of the woman's uterous and be expelled. In other words, the recently conceived child travels down the fallopian tube, cannot attach to his or her mother's womb, is passed out of her unnoticed, and dies. -- It is only when all 3 modes of action are "unsuccessful" that the "contraceptive" "fails"... the woman ovulates despite the suppression, the sperm swims through the thicker mucous, and the child attaches to his or her mother's womb despite the inhospitable environment caused by the class 4 carcinogen his/her mother is taking.
"All we heard in 08 election was that Obama had not done dyck as a Senator and you claim he fought tooth and nail?"
Your assertion that Obama did NOT fight tooth and nail to prevent The Unborn Child Protection Act legislation from passing, despite its overwhelming support in the Senate, even though he was the chairman of the committee that would not let it out to see the light of day in a Senate vote, and all of the other evidence to the contrary is quite absurd, even for you.
That his opponents brought up that he did not sponsor any significant legislation that passed is not even a nearly relevant counterargument.
This is a silly discussion as long as you remain so deep in your bunker.
Your lack of a valid argument is not compensated for by gratuitous insults.
If you want to prevent abortions - then prevent pregnancies.
and speaking of invalid arguments, this one boils down to, "You can't complain about the often brutal slaughter of innocent human beings unless you prevent them from existing in the first place."
Your claim is that all of a sudden in human history due to the pill, women were suddently sex objects and you further blame the pill for family breakdowns and divorce spike? Wow.
There were two competing hypotheses when the debate was raging over whether or not to legalize contraception in the U.S. (Btw, the Comstock Laws against artificial contraception were passed by Protestants and Comstock was a Protestant.) One of those hypotheses was the one by Margaret Sanger, that artificial contraception would enhance marriages and reduce divorce because it would eliminate the strain on marriages caused by large numbers of children. She also promised that the numbers of teen pregnancies and indeed of all unwanted pregnancies would be eliminated or at least drastically reduced. Her rallying cry was "Every Child a Wanted Child" .
Pope Paul VI, on the other hand, warned that this would lead to the objectification of women, the breakdown of families, and a drastic increase in adultery and promiscuity.
In the scientific world, hypotheses are verified or rejected by the observed results. The results clearly and undeniably followed Pope Paul VI's predictions and just as clearly and Margaret Sanger's predictions were undeniably refuted and contradicted by the results that followed.
"Wow" should be the reaction to YOUR reaction. Despite the undeniable results you cling to the hypothesis that was clearly shown to be false... and make fun of the one that was shown to be true.
Sure it didn't also cause the downing of the Challenger and kidnapping of the Lindgergh baby?
Again the attempt to substitute absurdity for any sort of valid argument to back up your invalid opinions.
You claim Obama and HRC had "racist eugenic, evil policies including slaughter of INNOCENT HUNAN BEINGS
Well, the evidence for that claim is pretty overwhelming. Margaret Sanger's books are still extant, as are articles from her magazine and other writings. In her autobiography she even brags about how much support she got at a Ku Klux Klan meeting when she was the guest speaker, and how many additional invitations she got to other meetings.
Sanger had Nazis write articles for her magazine and spoke admiringly of the Nazi eugenics goals, and they spoke admiringly of her and were influenced by her. It wasn't until the atrocities of the Nazis came out after the war that Sanger and her wealthy eugenicist bankrollers quickly distanced themselves from the Nazis in the furor that ensued. That's when she changed the name of her organization to Planned Parenthood to try and hide from the stench.
I've posted these before, and you have always ignored the clear and undeniable evidence, but I'll post a few links for you again:
*Planned Parenthood's Racism
http://bit.ly/PPRacism
Planned Parenthood Kills More Black Babies in 4 days than the KKK did in its entire existence
http://bit.ly/LynchingIsForAmateurs
Black Genocide
http://bit.ly/BGenocide
Margaret Sanger speaks to the KKK
http://bit.ly/KKK-PP
(fetus is not a human being)
Denying the facts does not change the facts regardless of how many times you lie. That a human fetus is a human being is an undeniable scientific fact, as has been shown to you many times.
When Does Human Life Begin?
http://bit.ly/aLife
lifeissues | When do human beings (normally) begin?
http://bit.ly/OKbMHZ
as a means to carry out EVIL AGENDA of ridding us of "inferior races".
Once again, Margaret Sanger left a paper trail of books, articles and speeches. Her agenda was undeniable. Planned Parenthood, which she founded, has publicly stated that they are carrying out her agenda. Their highest award is the "Margaret Sanger Award", and some 80% of their clinics are in minority neighborhoods, and the reason they push so hard for government funding of their slaughterhouses is that they are targeting poor people especially. Wealthy eugenecists who are their biggest supporters still have the same goals as well. They don't want a lot of kids and they certainly don't want to be overwhelmed by the "Spawning" and breeding of those they consider inferior.
excerpt from: Planned Parenthood's Racism
http://bit.ly/PPRacism
Margaret Sanger said about her 1939 , "We do not want
word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and
the minister is the man who can straighten out the idea if it ever
occurs to any of their more rebellious members." [1]
Clarence Gamble, president of the American Eugenics Research
Association, said, "There is a great danger that we will fail because
the Negroes think it a plan for extermination. Hence lets appear to
let the colored run it as we appear to let [the] south do the
conference in Atlanta."[2] Under this policy, Planned Parenthood of
America hired a full-time "Negro Consultant" in 1944.[3]
The entire operation [Sanger's 1939 Negro Project] then was a ruse--a
manipulative attempt to get Blacks to cooperate in their own
elimination.
The project was quite successful. Its genocidal intentions were
carefully camouflaged beneath several layers of condescending
social-service rhetoric and organizational expertise. . . Soon
clinics throughout the South were distributing contraceptives to
Blacks and [4]*
In a 1926 speech at Vassar, Sanger said the nation needed to follow
the "drastic immigration laws" of 1924 with methods "to cut down on
the rapid multiplication of the unfit and undesirable at home."[5]
Jesus Christ, grow the fck up.
More blasphemy in using God's name in vain, and assorted expletives are not viable defenses of the indefensible... aka your support of those continuing the ongoing brutal slaughter of tens of millions of innocent human beings.
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
Wow. - JeffB MU - 8/8 15:57:27