Question:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Papa Jack wrote in message <361A3D2F.35FE…@geocities.com>… >Papa Jack commented: >On October 3, 1998, CMN News carried an AP article titled: >"John Paul Says Consistent ‘No’ to ‘Culture of Death’." >The article said, in part: > John Paul II has been firm on maintaining traditional > Roman Catholic teachings, showing little patience for > those who choose selectively what precepts to follow. > Some of his positions: > ___ > ABORTION: Calls it "abominable crime" and "shame of > humanity." Says stopping abortion, and euthanasia, is > nothing less than "the salvation of man and of > civilization." > [snip]
And if the Pope and the Catholic Church had their way, there would be no birth control of ANY kind and women would still be having babies until they died. Then you could piss and moan about all the women having babies and living on welfare. Try leaving the Pope and the Catholic Church out of the debate. They are still in the stone ages. From what I’ve read in here time and time again you choose to believe that pro-choice means pro-abortion. BEEP…Wrong answer…try again. Pro choice means just that. FOR choice. So far, not one person in here who is pro-choice has said that they are pro-abortion. They are for the right to choose for themselves whether or not abortion is the option for them and are for letting other women have that same choice. So don’t you dare assume that just because some one is pro-choice they are also pro-abortion. Because you’d be wrong 9 times out of 10. You said in one post that you and your wife never once considered abortion. And that none of your children did either. But don’t you see: That was a CHOICE you made?? It was what was right for you and for your children. Why would you even want to take away that right from someone else? What business is it of yours? Who died and made you the one to decide what is best for everyone else? Judy ======================================================== – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->The "Culture of Death" is an accurate description of those PARs >who fight to guarantee every female the right to kill her unborn >children regardless of circumstances or reasons. They want to >increase the body count at chop shops, while protesting that >they only want to advocate "CHOICE." They argue that it is >okay to "CHOOSE" to kill unborn children because they are smaller >and less developed than _________. >Have a grand week. >– >{ Papa Jack >{ >{ http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7346/ > "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all > men are created equal; that they are endowed by > their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that > among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of > happiness." –Thomas Jefferson
Response:
Kramer wrote: > Papa Jack wrote in message <361A3D2F.35FE…@geocities.com>…
===================================================================== > >Papa Jack commented: > >On October 3, 1998, CMN News carried an AP article titled: > >"John Paul Says Consistent ‘No’ to ‘Culture of Death’." >>The article said, in part: >> John Paul II has been firm on maintaining traditional >> Roman Catholic teachings, showing little patience for >> those who choose selectively what precepts to follow. >> Some of his positions:
___ >> ABORTION: Calls it "abominable crime" and "shame of >> humanity." Says stopping abortion, and euthanasia, is >> nothing less than "the salvation of man and of >> civilization." >> [snip]
===================================================================== > Judy Kramer wrote: > And if the Pope and the Catholic Church had their way, there > would be no birth control of ANY kind and women would still > be having babies until they died. Then you could piss and > moan about all the women having babies and living on welfare.
===================================================================== Papa Jack commented: Would you take away religious freedom from those people whose religious beliefs were different then yours? Isn’t that what the initial immigrants were fleeing when they came to America? You do not have to share other people’s religious beliefs to treat them with respect. ===================================================================== > Judy Kramer wrote: > Try leaving the Pope and the Catholic Church out of the > debate. They are still in the stone ages.
===================================================================== Papa Jack commented: And, who would you have us follow, Judy? King Clinton perhaps? ===================================================================== > Judy Kramer wrote: > From what I’ve read in here time and time again you choose > to believe that pro-choice means pro-abortion.
===================================================================== Papa Jack commented: Actually I believe the euphemism "CHOICE" is just a phony way to try to establish abortion with the other more legit- imate issues of women’s rights. The beauty of the word "CHOICE" for the Pro-Abortion Rights (PARs) group is: 1) Americans are all brought up with the concept that "CHOICE" is good. We have the freedom to choose where we will live, where we will work, who we will marry, what we will eat tonight, and who we will vote for to lead us. Thus, folks have an initial warm fuzzy when someone talks about giving people a choice. By hijacking this warm fuzzy, the PARs hope to persuade people by emotional means. 2) PARs can congratulate themselves on how terribly sensitive they are without any of the responsibil- ity. They leave the pregnant woman to face any guilt involved — after all it WAS her "CHOICE." Sort of reminds one of Pontius Pilate washing his hands of responsibility when he allowed the mob to use his authority to kill Jesus. ===================================================================== > Judy Kramer wrote: > BEEP…Wrong answer…try again. Pro choice means just that. > FOR choice. So far, not one person in here who is pro-choice > has said that they are pro-abortion. They are for the right > to choose for themselves whether or not abortion is the option > for them and are for letting other women have that same choice. > So don’t you dare assume that just because some one is pro- > choice they are also pro-abortion. Because you’d be wrong 9 > times out of 10.
===================================================================== Papa Jack commented: You are Pro-Abortion Rights — correct? You advocate laws which encourage more abortionists and more abortion clinics. You want absolutely no limitations on any female’s ability to have her unborn child killed regardless of circumstances. Your pretense of not being "FOR" is a sham. If you believe that you are simply fooling yourself. ===================================================================== > Judy Kramer wrote: > You said in one post that you and your wife never once con- > sidered abortion. And that none of your children did either.
===================================================================== Papa Jack commented: You should know that my wife and I adopted our oldest son because we had no children after nine years. The furthest thing from our minds was killing an unborn child. Shortly after the adoption, my wife got pregnant — twice. No, in fact, just the opposite. We (two families) did consider abortion in one case. We decided against it. ===================================================================== > Judy Kramer wrote: > But don’t you see: That was a CHOICE you made?? It was what > was right for you and for your children. Why would you even > want to take away that right from someone else? What business > is it of yours? Who died and made you the one to decide what > is best for everyone else?
===================================================================== Papa Jack commented: You seem to have a distorted idea of what abortion really is. In every successful abortion, a professional killer uses modern medical technique to kill a living unborn child. Yes, in most cases the child is quite small. It is also in an early stage of normal expected development. So, you are supporting the right of all women to kill their offspring simply because of their size or because of their state of development. Does that really make sense to you. Let me say it again — each abortion is a homicide. ======================================================== >> Papa Jack comments: >> The "Culture of Death" is an accurate description of >> those PARs who fight to guarantee every female the >> right to kill her unborn children regardless of cir- >> cumstances or reasons. They want to increase the body >> count at chop shops, while protesting that they only >> want to advocate "CHOICE." They argue that it is >> okay to "CHOOSE" to kill unborn children because they >> are smaller and less developed than _________. >> Have a grand week.
– { Papa Jack { { http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7346/ "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." –Thomas Jefferson
Response:
Papa Jack wrote: > The PARs try to be subtle, > but the hate and anger almost oooz off the computer monitor.
Papa Jack, what does PAR mean? I’ve always wondered. Peace, Suzy
Response:
Kramer wrote:
:>> And if the Pope and the Catholic Church had their way, there :>> would be no birth control of ANY kind and women would still :>> be having babies until they died. Then you could piss and :>> moan about all the women having babies and living on welfare. Papa Jack wrote:
:>Would you take away religious freedom from those people whose :>religious beliefs were different then yours? Ray Fischer wrote:
:That is _exactly_ what you and the pope demand. Oh, yeah. That would explain his recent comments about building a bridge towards people of other faith. (Also, could you please refrain from changing Papa Jack’s name to an expletive? It only serves to weaken any points you make.) Ray Fischer wrote:
:What makes you think that the pope’s "beliefs" _deserve_ respect? For the same reason that anyone’s beliefs deserve respect. <Snip> — -Ashlie
Response:
Papa Jackass <papa_j…@geocities.com> wrote: >Kramer wrote: >> And if the Pope and the Catholic Church had their way, there >> would be no birth control of ANY kind and women would still >> be having babies until they died. Then you could piss and >> moan about all the women having babies and living on welfare. >Would you take away religious freedom from those people whose >religious beliefs were different then yours?
That is _exactly_ what you and the pope demand. > Isn’t that what >the initial immigrants were fleeing when they came to America?
Yes. >You do not have to share other people’s religious beliefs to >treat them with respect.
What makes you think that the pope’s "beliefs" _deserve_ respect? >> Try leaving the Pope and the Catholic Church out of the >> debate. They are still in the stone ages. >And, who would you have us follow, Judy? King Clinton perhaps?
Why do you think the following the pope is good? Doesn’t the bible command worship of God and not popes? — Ray Fischer The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious r…@netcom.com encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding. – Louis Brandeis
Response:
Papa Jack <papa_j…@geocities.com> wrote: >Josie wrote: >> They have every right to their opinion and every right to >> express it, just not to force it on the rest of us. > [snip] >What are you complaining about, Josie? Who is trying to FORCE >their religious opinion on you?
The Catholic church. You. > Is anyone trying to FORCE you >to pray?
The Catholic church once actively persecuted people who did not pray according to their dictates. > Are they attempting to FORCE you to attend religious >services? Are they forcing you to give them money for religious >purposes? Just what is it that you are complaining about?
They are trying to force people to adhere to their rules. — Ray Fischer The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious r…@netcom.com encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding. – Louis Brandeis
Response:
Papa Jackass <papa_j…@geocities.com> wrote: >Bigotry and prejudice are always ugly and stupid.
Except when it’s bigotry and prejudice which you agree with. > Any reading >of the sort of religious bigotry reflected below should turn >the stomach of the reader.
Just like dislike for cults that kill people is "religious bigotry", Jackass? Do you have as much respect for Koresh and Jim Jones as you do for the pope? Are YOU a religious bigot? — Ray Fischer The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious r…@netcom.com encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding. – Louis Brandeis
Response:
Papa Jack commented: Please allow me to repeat that I am NOT Catholic — in fact, I am NOT a religious person. However, I do have a strong belief that we should all show respect toward each other’s religious (or non-religious) beliefs. ********************************************************************** Pandagas wrote: > In article <3621138D.16660…@geocities.com>, > Papa Jack <papa_j…@geocities.com> writes:
===================================================================== >> Papa Jack remarked: >> That’s true of all world leaders. Do you believe that Prime >> Minister Blair isn’t shielded from the day-to-day irritations >> that you and I face?
===================================================================== > Pandagas wrote: > On the other hand, he’s faced with day-to-day irritations > I wouldn’t like to have to deal with.. such as Kosova, > and having to explain policies, and deal with mistakes with > some bullshit. I would quite like to be pope though.
===================================================================== Papa Jack commented: That’s right — but, that’s my point. World leaders are shielded from minor irritations because they need the time to devote to broad scale or urgent problems. I think we often call them "perks." ===================================================================== >> Papa Jack remarked: >> …Remember that Pope’s all start as ordinary priests — >> often ministering to people in poor neighborhoods where >> reality is stark.
===================================================================== > Pandagas wrote: > But even then, some do-gooders don’t _really_ understand > what they are dealling with..
===================================================================== Papa Jack commented: That is true in every field. Some engineers never really understand the scope of large scale engineering projects. Some dentists have clumsy hands. Some bankers risk their customers’ money on insecure investments. I doubt that the sort of priests you are thinking of get in the competition for Pope. ===================================================================== > Pandagas wrote: > …i’m not saying karel didn’t, and i’m sure church organ- > isations do some good work, but sometimes the vatican seems > like it will only be dragged kicking and screaming out of > the 1500’s.
===================================================================== Papa Jack commented: Perhaps you don’t really understand the central precept of an organization like the Catholic Church. They see the SCRIPTURE as their core support. The SCRIPTURE DOES NOT CHANGE to the Catholic Church. They have libraries of very old commentaries. They have hundreds of advanced level scholars who specialize in tracing the development of church doctrines. It is a strict hierarchy, where the Pope exercises almost total authority over the official doctrines. However, the Pope does not issue official positions (i.e., papal bulls or encyclicals) without extended study and discussion by the scholars and the other leaders of the church. It is the nature of such organizations that change will come slowly and carefully. Is that bad? Do you really believe people actually need a religion which shifts with the popular moods towards morals, truth, or redemption? ===================================================================== >> Papa Jack remarked: >> Then, over many years they slowly work their way up the >> rungs of the hierarchy — there are no "boy wonders" in >> the competition.
===================================================================== > Pandagas wrote: > No, they’re all old getts!!!
===================================================================== Papa Jack commented: Hey, what’s wrong with "old getts?" I are one! #8^) Seriously, look at what we got when we elected a "young" King Clinton. Young men sometimes make good military leaders or scientists — but, few are ready to be wise statesmen. ===================================================================== >> Papa Jack remarked: >> To be considered for Pope, one must show a broad range >> of both academic and leadership talents.
===================================================================== > Pandagas wrote: > As i was pointing out to vasile, the pope is more like a > prince than a religious leader..(his _land_ being the > Catholic church)….
===================================================================== Papa Jack commented: I seriously doubt that many of the millions and millions of Catholics would agree with your comment. All world leaders can be compared to kings/princes in some ways. But, the Pope spends the greatest majority of his work and attention to religious matters. That is his focus; his reason for being. ===================================================================== > Pandagas wrote: > …He’s important for sure, but i don’t think he is good > at reaching out to the spiritual needs of those who aren’t > Catholic….
===================================================================== Papa Jack commented: That is not in his job description. He does support efforts to reach and convert non Catholics to the church. However, the Catholic doctrine is that salvation is mostly restricted to those who are practicing Catholics. It is not the respon- sibility of the Pope to meet the spiritual needs of those who reject the Catholic tenets. Believe it or not, Panda, the Pope is not striving to please you or other PARs. ===================================================================== > Pandagas wrote: > …For instance, didn’t he refuse to go to Scandanavia > because the person he was meant to be seeing accepted > homosexuality? I can’t understand that… surely the > church is meant to bring people together, rather than > exclude.
===================================================================== Papa Jack commented: Can you give a specific cite for the Scandinavian tale? It seems likely that you got a partial or incomplete version of what really happened. Please go to the following URL to read a good explanation of the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality: http://www.cccb.ca/html_backgrounders/backgrounders-15_e.htm The explanation ends with: The church recognizes and defends the human rights of each person. However, it cannot recognize as part of these rights the fulfillment of acts that are morally wrong. All persons have the basic human right to be treated by individuals and society with dignity, respect and justice regardless of their behavior. For sure, the homosexual community is not an excep- tion to this; it has a particular right to pastoral care from the Church. Again, you must understand that the Catholic Church’s dogma on this subject goes back for hundreds of years and is firmly based on specific verses in the scriptures. It is not just the mood of the moment, to be adjusted to agree with the latest opinion polls. ===================================================================== >> Papa Jack remarked: >> Now, Pat, explain why that is not the "real world?" It sounds >> much like the worlds I knew — first in the military and then >> in the business world.
===================================================================== > Pandagas wrote: > Well, i would tend to say that the pope is out of touch > with the modern world.
===================================================================== Papa Jack commented: You would tend to say that, but can you offer any convincing evidence of your biased belief? You struggle to remain politically correct in a changing world. The Pope has a different set of priorities. ===================================================================== >> Papa Jack remarked: >> Or, perhaps, you just disagree with the precepts of the Catholic >> Church so you write whatever seems to be a good insult? Huh?
===================================================================== > Pandagas wrote: > The pope is probably a very nice and clever man, but so was my > grandad.
===================================================================== Papa Jack commented: And what is wrong with granddad’s. I are one. #8^) Are you one of those wiseassed whippersnappers who think that everyone over 40 is wrong 98% of the time? Allow me to quote one of my favorite people — Mark Twain: When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years. Enjoy a great week. — { Papa Jack { { http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7346/ "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." –Thomas Jefferson
Response:
Papa Jackass <papa_j…@geocities.com> wrote: >On October 3, 1998, CMN News carried an AP article titled: >"John Paul Says Consistent ‘No’ to ‘Culture of Death’." >The article said, in part: > John Paul II has been firm on maintaining traditional > Roman Catholic teachings, showing little patience for > those who choose selectively what precepts to follow.
Except, apparently, when he chooses to do so. > Some of his positions: > ___ > ABORTION: Calls it "abominable crime" and "shame of > humanity." Says stopping abortion, and euthanasia, is > nothing less than "the salvation of man and of > civilization."
Smirk. He sounds a lot like a right-wing politician campaigning for followers. And it’s an interesting comment from the person who singlehandedly has done more to _promote_ abortion worldwide. But then, it’s always been a successful business strategy to create need and then sell the service to fill the need. — Ray Fischer The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious r…@netcom.com encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding. – Louis Brandeis
Response:
Pat Winstanley wrote: > In article <19981008145508.03615.00000…@ng-fi1.aol.com>, > MartyBegan <martybe…@aol.com> writes
===================================================================== >> MartyBegan <martybe…@aol.com> writes >> And why does the pope not know of real life??
===================================================================== > Pat Winstanley wrote: > Becauise he doesn’t live in the real world…
===================================================================== Papa Jack commented: That’s true of all world leaders. Do you believe that Prime Minister Blair isn’t shielded from the day-to-day irritations that you and I face? Remember that Pope’s all start as ordinary priests — often ministering to people in poor neighborhoods where reality is stark. Then, over many years they slowly work their way up the rungs of the hierarchy — there are no "boy wonders" in the competition. To be considered for Pope, one must show a broad range of both academic and leadership talents. Now, Pat, explain why that is not the "real world?" It sounds much like the worlds I knew — first in the military and then in the business world. Or, perhaps, you just disagree with the precepts of the Catholic Church so you write whatever seems to be a good insult? Huh? Enjoy a great week. — { Papa Jack { { http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7346/ "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." –Thomas Jefferson
Response:
Papa Jack commented: Bigotry and prejudice are always ugly and stupid. Any reading of the sort of religious bigotry reflected below should turn the stomach of the reader. Why do we see so many PARs who are not only atheists, but are ranting bigots against the religious beliefs of others? Can anyone give us a rational explanation for such ugliness? ===================================================================== – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Pandagas wrote: > In article <6vpegj$…@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, Vasile Aciobanitei > <valdo…@ix.netcom.com> writes: > >In article <361E866C.B49E2…@geocities.com>, > > Papa Jack <papa_j…@geocities.com> wrote: > >> Have you ever watched how people > >>react when he travels? He is one of the most loved (and > >>hated) persons on the face of the earth. Your pitiful > >>little whining means zero. > >Bullshit, pope is not most love neither most hatered. > karel is more like a prince than a religious leader… > > Jesus was, is and will be. > Hating Jesus is a bit like hating JR, if you ask me. > > Pope is an impostor. > Normal people explode if they get in direct touch with God, so > it should all go through the pope.. he’s one hard mother. > >Many people go to see him as a curiosity. > LOL!! He’s a curiosity, is he? They wheel him out so everyone > can point and laugh at his funny clothes!! > > I opened the TV to see him, a pitiful old man. > If he got his picture taken with the Spice Girls i’m sure > he’d purk up a bit…
– { Papa Jack { { http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7346/ "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." –Thomas Jefferson
Response:
Linser, you aren’t a religious bigot? "some old Roman" You make comments like this? You have got to be kidding. I would have to comment that just because he isn’t your holy leader, you certainly don’t have to call him names. That is as bad as el coyote and his flippant use of the "n" word. He thinks as you do, that name calling isn’t bigotry. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Papa Jack wrote: > ===================================================================== > > linser wrote: > > Papa Jack: I’ve got to side with "Vasile" on this one. > ===================================================================== > Papa Jack commented: > Why in the world would anyone ever side with Vasile on anything? > I normally have trouble even understanding him. > ===================================================================== > > linser wrote: > > Who cares what some old Roman says who has no idea what > > modern life is all about? > ===================================================================== > Papa Jack commented: > Millions of people all over the world care very much what > the Pope tells them. Have you ever watched how people > react when he travels? He is one of the most loved (and > hated) persons on the face of the earth. Your pitiful > little whining means zero. > ===================================================================== > > linser wrote: > > And please don’t ever again call a disbeliever a "religious > > bigot" ever again because being an atheist myself, I’ve > > realized we as a non-religion feel the brunt of biogotry > > much more than Christians do. > ===================================================================== > Papa Jack commented: > You ARE a religious bigot. That is clear. When your hatred > forces you to strike out verbally at other folks’ religious > beliefs, you are hardly thinking like a rational person. > Stop and think for a minute. What was there about these > messages which made you want to insult the Pope? Why did > you feel that way? > I am a non religious person myself. I have NOT felt the brunt > of bigotry for my beliefs. Why are you experiencing such > bigotry? Perhaps it is because you refuse to show a reasonable > degree of respect for the other person’s beliefs. > ===================================================================== > > Papa Jack wrote: > >> Vasile Aciobanitei wrote: > >>> In article <361A3D2F.35FE…@geocities.com>, > >>> Papa Jack <papa_j…@geocities.com> wrote: > ===================================================================== > >>>> Papa Jack commented: > >>>> On October 3, 1998, CMN News carried an AP article titled: > >>>> "John Paul Says Consistent ‘No’ to ‘Culture of Death’." > >>>> The article said, in part: > >>>> John Paul II has been firm on maintaining traditional > >>>> Roman Catholic teachings, showing little patience for > >>>> those who choose selectively what precepts to follow. > ___ > >>>> ABORTION: Calls it "abominable crime" and "shame of > >>>> humanity." Says stopping abortion, and euthanasia, is > >>>> nothing less than "the salvation of man and of > >>>> civilization." > >> [snip] > ===================================================================== > >>> Vasile Aciobanitei wrote: > >>> Hey PJ, go post in alt.religion.nobody.care. JP the II-nd > >>> is jerking off, he doesn’t know what real life means. > ===================================================================== > >> Papa Jack commented: > >> Thank you, Vasile, for helping me demonstrate what a religous > >> bigot you really are. Don’t you want to throw a few obscene > >> insults at Mother Teresa also? > — > { Papa Jack > { > { http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7346/ > "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all > men are created equal; that they are endowed by > their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that > among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of > happiness." –Thomas Jefferson
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Kramer wrote: > kin…@pop.mpls.uswest.net wrote in message > <361C29CA.2EC04…@pop.mpls.uswest.net>… > >Kramer wrote: > >> Papa Jack wrote in message <361B028D.286B…@geocities.com>… > >> >Kramer wrote: > >> >> Papa Jack wrote in message <361A3D2F.35FE…@geocities.com>… > >> > ===================================================================== > >> >> >Papa Jack commented: > >> >> >On October 3, 1998, CMN News carried an AP article titled: > >> >> >"John Paul Says Consistent ‘No’ to ‘Culture of Death’." > >> >>>The article said, in part: > >> >>> John Paul II has been firm on maintaining traditional > >> >>> Roman Catholic teachings, showing little patience for > >> >>> those who choose selectively what precepts to follow. > >> >>> Some of his positions: > >> > ___ > >> >>> ABORTION: Calls it "abominable crime" and "shame of > >> >>> humanity." Says stopping abortion, and euthanasia, is > >> >>> nothing less than "the salvation of man and of > >> >>> civilization." > >> >>> [snip] > >> > ===================================================================== > >> >> Judy Kramer wrote: > >> >> And if the Pope and the Catholic Church had their way, there > >> >> would be no birth control of ANY kind and women would still > >> >> be having babies until they died. Then you could piss and > >> >> moan about all the women having babies and living on welfare. > >> > ===================================================================== > >> >Papa Jack commented: > >> >Would you take away religious freedom from those people whose > >> >religious beliefs were different then yours? Isn’t that what > >> >the initial immigrants were fleeing when they came to America? > >> >You do not have to share other people’s religious beliefs to > >> >treat them with respect. > >> FYI, I am Catholic. > >> ===================================================================== > >> >> Judy Kramer wrote: > >> >> Try leaving the Pope and the Catholic Church out of the > >> >> debate. They are still in the stone ages. > >> > ===================================================================== > >> >Papa Jack commented: > >> >And, who would you have us follow, Judy? King Clinton perhaps? > >> Ahhhh…I see someone doesn’t care for Clinton…I can’t answer that. > >> Personally I like Clinton based on his political issues and what he’s > done > >> for education. I don’t care much for what he did with Lewinsky, but > that’s > >> another story. But if we have to follow someone, why not Clinton? > Unless > >> of course you have a better choice? > >> ===================================================================== > >> >> Judy Kramer wrote: > >> >> From what I’ve read in here time and time again you choose > >> >> to believe that pro-choice means pro-abortion. > >> > ===================================================================== > >> >Papa Jack commented: > >> >Actually I believe the euphemism "CHOICE" is just a phony > >> >way to try to establish abortion with the other more legit- > >> >imate issues of women’s rights. > >> >The beauty of the word "CHOICE" for the Pro-Abortion Rights > >> >(PARs) group is: > >> > 1) Americans are all brought up with the concept that > >> > "CHOICE" is good. We have the freedom to choose > >> > where we will live, where we will work, who we will > >> > marry, what we will eat tonight, and who we will > >> > vote for to lead us. Thus, folks have an initial > >> > warm fuzzy when someone talks about giving people > >> > a choice. By hijacking this warm fuzzy, the PARs > >> > hope to persuade people by emotional means. > >> And by telling people who are Pro CHOICE, that abortion is murder aren’t > you > >> in fact doing the same exact thing? > >> > 2) PARs can congratulate themselves on how terribly > >> > sensitive they are without any of the responsibil- > >> > ity. They leave the pregnant woman to face any > >> > guilt involved — after all it WAS her "CHOICE." > >> > Sort of reminds one of Pontius Pilate washing his > >> > hands of responsibility when he allowed the mob > >> > to use his authority to kill Jesus. > >> How do you know that? Personally, I don’t know what PARs do, but I know > >> when 2 out of my 4 sisters had abortions, the clinics were there to > counsel > >> before and after. I don’t know about ALL clinics, but the ones they went > to > >> were. > >> ===================================================================== > >> >> Judy Kramer wrote: > >> >> BEEP…Wrong answer…try again. Pro choice means just that. > >> >> FOR choice. So far, not one person in here who is pro-choice > >> >> has said that they are pro-abortion. They are for the right > >> >> to choose for themselves whether or not abortion is the option > >> >> for them and are for letting other women have that same choice. > >> >> So don’t you dare assume that just because some one is pro- > >> >> choice they are also pro-abortion. Because you’d be wrong 9 > >> >> times out of 10. > >> > ===================================================================== > >> >Papa Jack commented: > >> >You are Pro-Abortion Rights — correct? You advocate laws > >> >which encourage more abortionists and more abortion clinics. > >> >You want absolutely no limitations on any female’s ability > >> >to have her unborn child killed regardless of circumstances. > >> >Your pretense of not being "FOR" is a sham. If you believe > >> >that you are simply fooling yourself. > >> No…I’m not pro abortion. I’m pro-choice. It’s an individual choice, > PJ. > >> Just as you believing in the RTL movement is. It’s a choice based on > your > >> beliefs. > >> And for the record, please don’t say I’m fooling myself. You have no > clue > >> as to what I feel or believe. I made a choice not to abort either one of > my > >> sons. I made a choice many years ago that abortion wouldn’t be right for > me > >> except in the case of rape. I made my choice based on how I felt > >> personally. And I totally believe in letting other women make that same > >> choice based on their personal feelings. > >> I DO NOT think that abortion should be used as a method of birth control > if > >> that is what you’re implying. > >> ===================================================================== > >> >> Judy Kramer wrote: > >> >> You said in one post that you and your wife never once con- > >> >> sidered abortion. And that none of your children did either. > >> > ===================================================================== > >> >Papa Jack commented: > >> >You should know that my wife and I adopted our oldest son > >> >because we had no children after nine years. The furthest > >> >thing from our minds was killing an unborn child. Shortly > >> >after the adoption, my wife got pregnant — twice. > >> >No, in fact, just the opposite. We (two families) did > >> >consider abortion in one case. We decided against it. > >> See there, you made a CHOICE. Your family member considered abortion as > an > >> option. Maybe only for a few short minutes, but it was considered. > Don’t > >> you think everyone should have that right? To consider what is the best > >> option for themselves personally? > >> Thanks for not being a real jerk and climbing down my throat for my > beliefs. > >> I mean that sincerely too… > >> Judy > >> <snipped the rest for space> > >> >>> Have a grand week. > >> >– > >> >{ Papa Jack > >> >{ > >> >{ http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7346/ > >> > "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all > >> > men are created equal; that they are endowed by > >> > their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that > >> > among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of > >" How do you know that? Personally, I don’t know what PARs do, but I know > >when 2 out of my 4 sisters had abortions, the clinics were there to counsel > >before and after. I don’t know about ALL clinics, but the ones they went > >towere." Of course they would be supportive. It is like a good salesman. > You > >don’t want to miss out on your bread and butter…God knows you can just go > to > >another clinic and get an abortion there. Perhaps even compare pricing? > It is > >like a long distance carrier. Abortion Clinics WANT your business to STAY > in > >business. Of course they will show support. They want your money, they > need > >your money. > Actually they show support because they know that abortion is a tough > decision for a woman to make. They counsel before to make sure the woman > really wants the abortion. And sometimes they talk her out of it. So you > see, contrary to your belief, it doesn’t revolve around money. > I’m sure my sisters would love to hear your statement about it all being a > "sales pitch". I know they would tear your statement to shreds. > Know the facts before you send out a statement like that. The counselling > after the abortion for my sisters was free of charge. And they went to > different clinics. > That pretty much blows your "sales pitch" theory all to hell doesn’t it? > Judy
Judy, I do know what I am talking about. I have very close friends that have had abortions. I know about the counseling, I know about the support, but you are not correct in saying that it isn’t a business. It is a for profit business. It isn’t non-profit.
Response:
Josie wrote: > On Thu, 8 Oct 1998 18:56:47, martybe…@aol.com (MartyBegan) wrote: >> Josie wrote:
===================================================================== >>> Josie wrote: >>> The Pope does not speak for "god" but only for himself and for >>> those who choose to follow him. He (and those who follow him) >>> does not have the right to impose his narrow, extraordinarily >>> misogynistic, view of the universe on me or anyone else who >>> does *not choose to follow him.
===================================================================== >> MartyBegan) wrote: >> but they can voice thier opinion same as you. something you >> keep trying to ignore.
===================================================================== > Josie wrote: > They have every right to their opinion and every right to > express it, just not to force it on the rest of us.
[snip] ===================================================================== Papa Jack commented: What are you complaining about, Josie? Who is trying to FORCE their religious opinion on you? Is anyone trying to FORCE you to pray? Are they attempting to FORCE you to attend religious services? Are they forcing you to give them money for religious purposes? Just what is it that you are complaining about? Enjoy a grand weekend. — { Papa Jack { { http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7346/ "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." –Thomas Jefferson
Response:
Papa Jack wrote in message <361D9138.DF9AC…@geocities.com>… >Josie wrote: >> On Thu, 8 Oct 1998 18:56:47, martybe…@aol.com (MartyBegan) wrote: >>> Josie wrote:
==================================================================== = >>>> Josie wrote: >>>> The Pope does not speak for "god" but only for himself and for >>>> those who choose to follow him. He (and those who follow him) >>>> does not have the right to impose his narrow, extraordinarily >>>> misogynistic, view of the universe on me or anyone else who >>>> does *not choose to follow him.
==================================================================== = >>> MartyBegan) wrote: >>> but they can voice thier opinion same as you. something you >>> keep trying to ignore.
==================================================================== = >> Josie wrote: >> They have every right to their opinion and every right to >> express it, just not to force it on the rest of us. > [snip]
==================================================================== = >Papa Jack commented: >What are you complaining about, Josie? Who is trying to FORCE >their religious opinion on you?
Whole bunch of people. For example, papists and other xtians are trying to FORCE her to gestate a fetus if she happens to get pregnant. Many xtians go so far as to wanting to restrict/ban access to birth control [1]… >Is anyone trying to FORCE you >to pray? Are they attempting to FORCE you to attend religious >services? Are they forcing you to give them money for religious >purposes?
Well, religions get tax-exempt status, for starters, which increases the amount of taxes she has to pay. Plus we can get into the whole issue of school vouchers… >Just what is it that you are complaining about?
People attempting to force their own personal mythologies onto others… >Enjoy a grand weekend. >– >{ Papa Jack
- ken [1] I assume access to calendars would not be restricted so that women can use the ever-so-effective rhythm method…
Response:
===================================================================== > linser wrote: > Papa Jack: I’ve got to side with "Vasile" on this one.
===================================================================== Papa Jack commented: Why in the world would anyone ever side with Vasile on anything? I normally have trouble even understanding him. ===================================================================== > linser wrote: > Who cares what some old Roman says who has no idea what > modern life is all about?
===================================================================== Papa Jack commented: Millions of people all over the world care very much what the Pope tells them. Have you ever watched how people react when he travels? He is one of the most loved (and hated) persons on the face of the earth. Your pitiful little whining means zero. ===================================================================== > linser wrote: > And please don’t ever again call a disbeliever a "religious > bigot" ever again because being an atheist myself, I’ve > realized we as a non-religion feel the brunt of biogotry > much more than Christians do.
===================================================================== Papa Jack commented: You ARE a religious bigot. That is clear. When your hatred forces you to strike out verbally at other folks’ religious beliefs, you are hardly thinking like a rational person. Stop and think for a minute. What was there about these messages which made you want to insult the Pope? Why did you feel that way? I am a non religious person myself. I have NOT felt the brunt of bigotry for my beliefs. Why are you experiencing such bigotry? Perhaps it is because you refuse to show a reasonable degree of respect for the other person’s beliefs. ===================================================================== > Papa Jack wrote: >> Vasile Aciobanitei wrote: >>> In article <361A3D2F.35FE…@geocities.com>, >>> Papa Jack <papa_j…@geocities.com> wrote:
===================================================================== >>>> Papa Jack commented: >>>> On October 3, 1998, CMN News carried an AP article titled: >>>> "John Paul Says Consistent ‘No’ to ‘Culture of Death’." >>>> The article said, in part: >>>> John Paul II has been firm on maintaining traditional >>>> Roman Catholic teachings, showing little patience for >>>> those who choose selectively what precepts to follow. ___ >>>> ABORTION: Calls it "abominable crime" and "shame of >>>> humanity." Says stopping abortion, and euthanasia, is >>>> nothing less than "the salvation of man and of >>>> civilization." >> [snip]
===================================================================== >>> Vasile Aciobanitei wrote: >>> Hey PJ, go post in alt.religion.nobody.care. JP the II-nd >>> is jerking off, he doesn’t know what real life means.
===================================================================== >> Papa Jack commented: >> Thank you, Vasile, for helping me demonstrate what a religous >> bigot you really are. Don’t you want to throw a few obscene >> insults at Mother Teresa also?
– { Papa Jack { { http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7346/ "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." –Thomas Jefferson
Response:
In article <6vdmlc$jf…@ins8.netins.net>, "Kramer" <hwke…@netins.net> wrote: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Papa Jack wrote in message <361A3D2F.35FE…@geocities.com>… > >Papa Jack commented: > >On October 3, 1998, CMN News carried an AP article titled: > >"John Paul Says Consistent ‘No’ to ‘Culture of Death’." > >The article said, in part: > > John Paul II has been firm on maintaining traditional > > Roman Catholic teachings, showing little patience for > > those who choose selectively what precepts to follow. > > Some of his positions: > > ___ > > ABORTION: Calls it "abominable crime" and "shame of > > humanity." Says stopping abortion, and euthanasia, is > > nothing less than "the salvation of man and of > > civilization." > > [snip] > And if the Pope and the Catholic Church had their way, there > would be no birth control of ANY kind and women would still > be having babies until they died. Then you could piss and > moan about all the women having babies and living on welfare. > Try leaving the Pope and the Catholic Church out of the > debate. They are still in the stone ages.
Not to mention that the local parish priests tend to be less than strict about the birth control condemnation. The Pope doesn’t have to deal with the consequences of his proclamations. The Parish Priest does, so the parish priest uses different tactics. As I was told by my parish priest during my marriage preparation course (The Catholic Church makes you pass a test before they let you get married!), "using any birth control other than Natural Family Planning is a sin, and everyone should strive to be perfect, but in case you discover your human frailty, here’s an 800 number to call to order condoms, and here’s the address of the County Clinic if you discover that you cannot afford condoms." If you need to talk to a Catholic Priest, try to get a Franciscan (mine) or a Jesuit. The Franciscans and the Jesuits have a similar approach to sins and forgiveness (the Jesuits have an undeserved bad reputation as being too strict. The strict part is true, but the too strict is undeserved): they explain what is and is not a sin, then if you have any questions about actions which may require penance and atonement, such as using condoms, they’ll answer those questions too. Franciscans and Jesuits are big on the "free will" proclamation, which other denominations appear to desire to hide. They’re also great thinkers, which apparently in a religion allows one to think thoughts which other denominations find objectionable, such as another Franciscan who hosts a radio show called "The Message Of Rock" where he finds Christian messages in songs from such singers as Madonna and Smashing Pumpkins. He was one of the few Catholic priests who did not find "Like a Prayer" exceptionally objectionable, not even the video. ———–== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==———- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Response:
Papa Jack <papa_j…@geocities.com> wrote: >Papa Jack commented: >On October 3, 1998, CMN News carried an AP article titled:
"Dreary old almost-dead guy says the world is horrible and people who don’t agree with him are rotten." >The "Culture of Death" is an accurate description of those PARs >who fight to guarantee every female the right to kill her unborn >children regardless of circumstances or reasons. They want to >increase the body count at chop shops, while protesting that >they only want to advocate "CHOICE."
"Dreary old almost-dead guy says the world is horrible and people who don’t agree with him are rotten." > They argue that it is >okay to "CHOOSE" to kill unborn children because they are smaller >and less developed than _________.
Ones who are born? "After all, we do have to draw the line somewhere," to quote Papa Jack on why it’s okay to kill unborn but not born children, as long as he sympathizes with the pregnant woman or her husband.
Response:
kin…@pop.mpls.uswest.net wrote in message
<361C29CA.2EC04…@pop.mpls.uswest.net>… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Kramer wrote: >> Papa Jack wrote in message <361B028D.286B…@geocities.com>… >> >Kramer wrote: >> >> Papa Jack wrote in message <361A3D2F.35FE…@geocities.com>… >> > ===================================================================== >> >> >Papa Jack commented: >> >> >On October 3, 1998, CMN News carried an AP article titled: >> >> >"John Paul Says Consistent ‘No’ to ‘Culture of Death’." >> >>>The article said, in part: >> >>> John Paul II has been firm on maintaining traditional >> >>> Roman Catholic teachings, showing little patience for >> >>> those who choose selectively what precepts to follow. >> >>> Some of his positions: >> > ___ >> >>> ABORTION: Calls it "abominable crime" and "shame of >> >>> humanity." Says stopping abortion, and euthanasia, is >> >>> nothing less than "the salvation of man and of >> >>> civilization." >> >>> [snip] >> > ===================================================================== >> >> Judy Kramer wrote: >> >> And if the Pope and the Catholic Church had their way, there >> >> would be no birth control of ANY kind and women would still >> >> be having babies until they died. Then you could piss and >> >> moan about all the women having babies and living on welfare. >> > ===================================================================== >> >Papa Jack commented: >> >Would you take away religious freedom from those people whose >> >religious beliefs were different then yours? Isn’t that what >> >the initial immigrants were fleeing when they came to America? >> >You do not have to share other people’s religious beliefs to >> >treat them with respect. >> FYI, I am Catholic. >> ===================================================================== >> >> Judy Kramer wrote: >> >> Try leaving the Pope and the Catholic Church out of the >> >> debate. They are still in the stone ages. >> > ===================================================================== >> >Papa Jack commented: >> >And, who would you have us follow, Judy? King Clinton perhaps? >> Ahhhh…I see someone doesn’t care for Clinton…I can’t answer that. >> Personally I like Clinton based on his political issues and what he’s done >> for education. I don’t care much for what he did with Lewinsky, but that’s >> another story. But if we have to follow someone, why not Clinton? Unless >> of course you have a better choice? >> ===================================================================== >> >> Judy Kramer wrote: >> >> From what I’ve read in here time and time again you choose >> >> to believe that pro-choice means pro-abortion. >> > ===================================================================== >> >Papa Jack commented: >> >Actually I believe the euphemism "CHOICE" is just a phony >> >way to try to establish abortion with the other more legit- >> >imate issues of women’s rights. >> >The beauty of the word "CHOICE" for the Pro-Abortion Rights >> >(PARs) group is: >> > 1) Americans are all brought up with the concept that >> > "CHOICE" is good. We have the freedom to choose >> > where we will live, where we will work, who we will >> > marry, what we will eat tonight, and who we will >> > vote for to lead us. Thus, folks have an initial >> > warm fuzzy when someone talks about giving people >> > a choice. By hijacking this warm fuzzy, the PARs >> > hope to persuade people by emotional means. >> And by telling people who are Pro CHOICE, that abortion is murder aren’t you >> in fact doing the same exact thing? >> > 2) PARs can congratulate themselves on how terribly >> > sensitive they are without any of the responsibil- >> > ity. They leave the pregnant woman to face any >> > guilt involved — after all it WAS her "CHOICE." >> > Sort of reminds one of Pontius Pilate washing his >> > hands of responsibility when he allowed the mob >> > to use his authority to kill Jesus. >> How do you know that? Personally, I don’t know what PARs do, but I know >> when 2 out of my 4 sisters had abortions, the clinics were there to counsel >> before and after. I don’t know about ALL clinics, but the ones they went to >> were. >> ===================================================================== >> >> Judy Kramer wrote: >> >> BEEP…Wrong answer…try again. Pro choice means just that. >> >> FOR choice. So far, not one person in here who is pro-choice >> >> has said that they are pro-abortion. They are for the right >> >> to choose for themselves whether or not abortion is the option >> >> for them and are for letting other women have that same choice. >> >> So don’t you dare assume that just because some one is pro- >> >> choice they are also pro-abortion. Because you’d be wrong 9 >> >> times out of 10. >> > ===================================================================== >> >Papa Jack commented: >> >You are Pro-Abortion Rights — correct? You advocate laws >> >which encourage more abortionists and more abortion clinics. >> >You want absolutely no limitations on any female’s ability >> >to have her unborn child killed regardless of circumstances. >> >Your pretense of not being "FOR" is a sham. If you believe >> >that you are simply fooling yourself. >> No…I’m not pro abortion. I’m pro-choice. It’s an individual choice, PJ. >> Just as you believing in the RTL movement is. It’s a choice based on your >> beliefs. >> And for the record, please don’t say I’m fooling myself. You have no clue >> as to what I feel or believe. I made a choice not to abort either one of my >> sons. I made a choice many years ago that abortion wouldn’t be right for me >> except in the case of rape. I made my choice based on how I felt >> personally. And I totally believe in letting other women make that same >> choice based on their personal feelings. >> I DO NOT think that abortion should be used as a method of birth control if >> that is what you’re implying. >> ===================================================================== >> >> Judy Kramer wrote: >> >> You said in one post that you and your wife never once con- >> >> sidered abortion. And that none of your children did either. >> > ===================================================================== >> >Papa Jack commented: >> >You should know that my wife and I adopted our oldest son >> >because we had no children after nine years. The furthest >> >thing from our minds was killing an unborn child. Shortly >> >after the adoption, my wife got pregnant — twice. >> >No, in fact, just the opposite. We (two families) did >> >consider abortion in one case. We decided against it. >> See there, you made a CHOICE. Your family member considered abortion as an >> option. Maybe only for a few short minutes, but it was considered. Don’t >> you think everyone should have that right? To consider what is the best >> option for themselves personally? >> Thanks for not being a real jerk and climbing down my throat for my beliefs. >> I mean that sincerely too… >> Judy >> <snipped the rest for space> >> >>> Have a grand week. >> >– >> >{ Papa Jack >> >{ >> >{ http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7346/ >> > "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all >> > men are created equal; that they are endowed by >> > their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that >> > among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of >" How do you know that? Personally, I don’t know what PARs do, but I know >when 2 out of my 4 sisters had abortions, the clinics were there to counsel >before and after. I don’t know about ALL clinics, but the ones they went >towere." Of course they would be supportive. It is like a good salesman. You >don’t want to miss out on your bread and butter…God knows you can just go to >another clinic and get an abortion there. Perhaps even compare pricing? It is >like a long distance carrier. Abortion Clinics WANT your business to STAY in >business. Of course they will show support. They want your money, they need >your money.
Actually they show support because they know that abortion is a tough decision for a woman to make. They counsel before to make sure the woman really wants the abortion. And sometimes they talk her out of it. So you see, contrary to your belief, it doesn’t revolve around money. I’m sure my sisters would love to hear your statement about it all being a "sales pitch". I know they would tear your statement to shreds. Know the facts before you send out a statement like that. The counselling after the abortion for my sisters was free of charge. And they went to different clinics. That pretty much blows your "sales pitch" theory all to hell doesn’t it? Judy
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Kramer wrote: > Papa Jack wrote in message <361B028D.286B…@geocities.com>… > >Kramer wrote: > >> Papa Jack wrote in message <361A3D2F.35FE…@geocities.com>… > > ===================================================================== > >> >Papa Jack commented: > >> >On October 3, 1998, CMN News carried an AP article titled: > >> >"John Paul Says Consistent ‘No’ to ‘Culture of Death’." > >>>The article said, in part: > >>> John Paul II has been firm on maintaining traditional > >>> Roman Catholic teachings, showing little patience for > >>> those who choose selectively what precepts to follow. > >>> Some of his positions: > > ___ > >>> ABORTION: Calls it "abominable crime" and "shame of > >>> humanity." Says stopping abortion, and euthanasia, is > >>> nothing less than "the salvation of man and of > >>> civilization." > >>> [snip] > > ===================================================================== > >> Judy Kramer wrote: > >> And if the Pope and the Catholic Church had their way, there > >> would be no birth control of ANY kind and women would still > >> be having babies until they died. Then you could piss and > >> moan about all the women having babies and living on welfare. > > ===================================================================== > >Papa Jack commented: > >Would you take away religious freedom from those people whose > >religious beliefs were different then yours? Isn’t that what > >the initial immigrants were fleeing when they came to America? > >You do not have to share other people’s religious beliefs to > >treat them with respect. > FYI, I am Catholic. > ===================================================================== > >> Judy Kramer wrote: > >> Try leaving the Pope and the Catholic Church out of the > >> debate. They are still in the stone ages. > > ===================================================================== > >Papa Jack commented: > >And, who would you have us follow, Judy? King Clinton perhaps? > Ahhhh…I see someone doesn’t care for Clinton…I can’t answer that. > Personally I like Clinton based on his political issues and what he’s done > for education. I don’t care much for what he did with Lewinsky, but that’s > another story. But if we have to follow someone, why not Clinton? Unless > of course you have a better choice? > ===================================================================== > >> Judy Kramer wrote: > >> From what I’ve read in here time and time again you choose > >> to believe that pro-choice means pro-abortion. > > ===================================================================== > >Papa Jack commented: > >Actually I believe the euphemism "CHOICE" is just a phony > >way to try to establish abortion with the other more legit- > >imate issues of women’s rights. > >The beauty of the word "CHOICE" for the Pro-Abortion Rights > >(PARs) group is: > > 1) Americans are all brought up with the concept that > > "CHOICE" is good. We have the freedom to choose > > where we will live, where we will work, who we will > > marry, what we will eat tonight, and who we will > > vote for to lead us. Thus, folks have an initial > > warm fuzzy when someone talks about giving people > > a choice. By hijacking this warm fuzzy, the PARs > > hope to persuade people by emotional means. > And by telling people who are Pro CHOICE, that abortion is murder aren’t you > in fact doing the same exact thing? > > 2) PARs can congratulate themselves on how terribly > > sensitive they are without any of the responsibil- > > ity. They leave the pregnant woman to face any > > guilt involved — after all it WAS her "CHOICE." > > Sort of reminds one of Pontius Pilate washing his > > hands of responsibility when he allowed the mob > > to use his authority to kill Jesus. > How do you know that? Personally, I don’t know what PARs do, but I know > when 2 out of my 4 sisters had abortions, the clinics were there to counsel > before and after. I don’t know about ALL clinics, but the ones they went to > were. > ===================================================================== > >> Judy Kramer wrote: > >> BEEP…Wrong answer…try again. Pro choice means just that. > >> FOR choice. So far, not one person in here who is pro-choice > >> has said that they are pro-abortion. They are for the right > >> to choose for themselves whether or not abortion is the option > >> for them and are for letting other women have that same choice. > >> So don’t you dare assume that just because some one is pro- > >> choice they are also pro-abortion. Because you’d be wrong 9 > >> times out of 10. > > ===================================================================== > >Papa Jack commented: > >You are Pro-Abortion Rights — correct? You advocate laws > >which encourage more abortionists and more abortion clinics. > >You want absolutely no limitations on any female’s ability > >to have her unborn child killed regardless of circumstances. > >Your pretense of not being "FOR" is a sham. If you believe > >that you are simply fooling yourself. > No…I’m not pro abortion. I’m pro-choice. It’s an individual choice, PJ. > Just as you believing in the RTL movement is. It’s a choice based on your > beliefs. > And for the record, please don’t say I’m fooling myself. You have no clue > as to what I feel or believe. I made a choice not to abort either one of my > sons. I made a choice many years ago that abortion wouldn’t be right for me > except in the case of rape. I made my choice based on how I felt > personally. And I totally believe in letting other women make that same > choice based on their personal feelings. > I DO NOT think that abortion should be used as a method of birth control if > that is what you’re implying. > ===================================================================== > >> Judy Kramer wrote: > >> You said in one post that you and your wife never once con- > >> sidered abortion. And that none of your children did either. > > ===================================================================== > >Papa Jack commented: > >You should know that my wife and I adopted our oldest son > >because we had no children after nine years. The furthest > >thing from our minds was killing an unborn child. Shortly > >after the adoption, my wife got pregnant — twice. > >No, in fact, just the opposite. We (two families) did > >consider abortion in one case. We decided against it. > See there, you made a CHOICE. Your family member considered abortion as an > option. Maybe only for a few short minutes, but it was considered. Don’t > you think everyone should have that right? To consider what is the best > option for themselves personally? > Thanks for not being a real jerk and climbing down my throat for my beliefs. > I mean that sincerely too… > Judy > <snipped the rest for space> > >>> Have a grand week. > >– > >{ Papa Jack > >{ > >{ http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7346/ > > "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all > > men are created equal; that they are endowed by > > their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that > > among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
" How do you know that? Personally, I don’t know what PARs do, but I know when 2 out of my 4 sisters had abortions, the clinics were there to counsel before and after. I don’t know about ALL clinics, but the ones they went towere." Of course they would be supportive. It is like a good salesman. You don’t want to miss out on your bread and butter…God knows you can just go to another clinic and get an abortion there. Perhaps even compare pricing? It is like a long distance carrier. Abortion Clinics WANT your business to STAY in business. Of course they will show support. They want your money, they need your money.
Response:
On Tue, 6 Oct 1998 18:13:34, "Kramer" <hwke…@netins.net> wrote: > And if the Pope and the Catholic Church had their way, there would be no > birth control of ANY kind and women would still be having babies until they > died. Then you could piss and moan about all the women having babies and > living on welfare. Try leaving the Pope and the Catholic Church out of the > debate. They are still in the stone ages.
The Pope does not speak for "god" but only for himself and for those who choose to follow him. He (and those who follow him) does not have the right to impose his narrow, extraordinarily misogynistic, view of the universe on me or anyone else who does *not choose to follow him. The days of the rule of Rome, *thank god*, are l-o-o-ong gone. Josie
Response:
Vasile Aciobanitei wrote: > In article <361A3D2F.35FE…@geocities.com>, > Papa Jack <papa_j…@geocities.com> wrote:
===================================================================== >> Papa Jack commented: >> On October 3, 1998, CMN News carried an AP article titled: >> "John Paul Says Consistent ‘No’ to ‘Culture of Death’." >> The article said, in part: >> John Paul II has been firm on maintaining traditional >> Roman Catholic teachings, showing little patience for >> those who choose selectively what precepts to follow. ___ >> ABORTION: Calls it "abominable crime" and "shame of >> humanity." Says stopping abortion, and euthanasia, is >> nothing less than "the salvation of man and of >> civilization."
[snip] ===================================================================== > Vasile Aciobanitei wrote: > Hey PJ, go post in alt.religion.nobody.care. JP the II-nd > is jerking off, he doesn’t know what real life means.
===================================================================== Papa Jack commented: Thank you, Vasile, for helping me demonstrate what a religous bigot you really are. Don’t you want to throw a few obscene insults at Mother Teresa also? — { Papa Jack { { http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7346/ "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." –Thomas Jefferson
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Papa Jack wrote in message <361B028D.286B…@geocities.com>… >Kramer wrote: >> Papa Jack wrote in message <361A3D2F.35FE…@geocities.com>… > ===================================================================== >> >Papa Jack commented: >> >On October 3, 1998, CMN News carried an AP article titled: >> >"John Paul Says Consistent ‘No’ to ‘Culture of Death’." >>>The article said, in part: >>> John Paul II has been firm on maintaining traditional >>> Roman Catholic teachings, showing little patience for >>> those who choose selectively what precepts to follow. >>> Some of his positions: > ___ >>> ABORTION: Calls it "abominable crime" and "shame of >>> humanity." Says stopping abortion, and euthanasia, is >>> nothing less than "the salvation of man and of >>> civilization." >>> [snip] > ===================================================================== >> Judy Kramer wrote: >> And if the Pope and the Catholic Church had their way, there >> would be no birth control of ANY kind and women would still >> be having babies until they died. Then you could piss and >> moan about all the women having babies and living on welfare. > ===================================================================== >Papa Jack commented: >Would you take away religious freedom from those people whose >religious beliefs were different then yours? Isn’t that what >the initial immigrants were fleeing when they came to America? >You do not have to share other people’s religious beliefs to >treat them with respect.
FYI, I am Catholic. ===================================================================== >> Judy Kramer wrote: >> Try leaving the Pope and the Catholic Church out of the >> debate. They are still in the stone ages. > ===================================================================== >Papa Jack commented: >And, who would you have us follow, Judy? King Clinton perhaps?
Ahhhh…I see someone doesn’t care for Clinton…I can’t answer that. Personally I like Clinton based on his political issues and what he’s done for education. I don’t care much for what he did with Lewinsky, but that’s another story. But if we have to follow someone, why not Clinton? Unless of course you have a better choice? ===================================================================== – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> Judy Kramer wrote: >> From what I’ve read in here time and time again you choose >> to believe that pro-choice means pro-abortion. > ===================================================================== >Papa Jack commented: >Actually I believe the euphemism "CHOICE" is just a phony >way to try to establish abortion with the other more legit- >imate issues of women’s rights. >The beauty of the word "CHOICE" for the Pro-Abortion Rights >(PARs) group is: > 1) Americans are all brought up with the concept that > "CHOICE" is good. We have the freedom to choose > where we will live, where we will work, who we will > marry, what we will eat tonight, and who we will > vote for to lead us. Thus, folks have an initial > warm fuzzy when someone talks about giving people > a choice. By hijacking this warm fuzzy, the PARs > hope to persuade people by emotional means.
And by telling people who are Pro CHOICE, that abortion is murder aren’t you in fact doing the same exact thing? > 2) PARs can congratulate themselves on how terribly > sensitive they are without any of the responsibil- > ity. They leave the pregnant woman to face any > guilt involved — after all it WAS her "CHOICE." > Sort of reminds one of Pontius Pilate washing his > hands of responsibility when he allowed the mob > to use his authority to kill Jesus.
How do you know that? Personally, I don’t know what PARs do, but I know when 2 out of my 4 sisters had abortions, the clinics were there to counsel before and after. I don’t know about ALL clinics, but the ones they went to were. ===================================================================== – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> Judy Kramer wrote: >> BEEP…Wrong answer…try again. Pro choice means just that. >> FOR choice. So far, not one person in here who is pro-choice >> has said that they are pro-abortion. They are for the right >> to choose for themselves whether or not abortion is the option >> for them and are for letting other women have that same choice. >> So don’t you dare assume that just because some one is pro- >> choice they are also pro-abortion. Because you’d be wrong 9 >> times out of 10. > ===================================================================== >Papa Jack commented: >You are Pro-Abortion Rights — correct? You advocate laws >which encourage more abortionists and more abortion clinics. >You want absolutely no limitations on any female’s ability >to have her unborn child killed regardless of circumstances. >Your pretense of not being "FOR" is a sham. If you believe >that you are simply fooling yourself.
No…I’m not pro abortion. I’m pro-choice. It’s an individual choice, PJ. Just as you believing in the RTL movement is. It’s a choice based on your beliefs. And for the record, please don’t say I’m fooling myself. You have no clue as to what I feel or believe. I made a choice not to abort either one of my sons. I made a choice many years ago that abortion wouldn’t be right for me except in the case of rape. I made my choice based on how I felt personally. And I totally believe in letting other women make that same choice based on their personal feelings. I DO NOT think that abortion should be used as a method of birth control if that is what you’re implying. ===================================================================== >> Judy Kramer wrote: >> You said in one post that you and your wife never once con- >> sidered abortion. And that none of your children did either. > ===================================================================== >Papa Jack commented: >You should know that my wife and I adopted our oldest son >because we had no children after nine years. The furthest >thing from our minds was killing an unborn child. Shortly >after the adoption, my wife got pregnant — twice. >No, in fact, just the opposite. We (two families) did >consider abortion in one case. We decided against it.
See there, you made a CHOICE. Your family member considered abortion as an option. Maybe only for a few short minutes, but it was considered. Don’t you think everyone should have that right? To consider what is the best option for themselves personally? Thanks for not being a real jerk and climbing down my throat for my beliefs. I mean that sincerely too… Judy <snipped the rest for space> – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>> Have a grand week. >– >{ Papa Jack >{ >{ http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7346/ > "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all > men are created equal; that they are endowed by > their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that > among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of > happiness." –Thomas Jefferson
Response:
Papa Jack commented: On October 3, 1998, CMN News carried an AP article titled: "John Paul Says Consistent ‘No’ to ‘Culture of Death’." The article said, in part: John Paul II has been firm on maintaining traditional Roman Catholic teachings, showing little patience for those who choose selectively what precepts to follow. Some of his positions: ___ ABORTION: Calls it "abominable crime" and "shame of humanity." Says stopping abortion, and euthanasia, is nothing less than "the salvation of man and of civilization." [snip] ======================================================== The "Culture of Death" is an accurate description of those PARs who fight to guarantee every female the right to kill her unborn children regardless of circumstances or reasons. They want to increase the body count at chop shops, while protesting that they only want to advocate "CHOICE." They argue that it is okay to "CHOOSE" to kill unborn children because they are smaller and less developed than _________. Have a grand week. — { Papa Jack { { http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7346/ "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." –Thomas Jefferson
Response:
Papa Jack <papa_j…@geocities.com> wrote: >The "Culture of Death" is an accurate description of those PARs >who fight to guarantee every female the right to kill her unborn >children regardless of circumstances or reasons. They want to >increase the body count at chop shops,
Still breaking your solemn oath to "remain postive", we see. Just why are you attempting to incite people to violence like this? Hoping someone else will do your dirty work? >while protesting that >they only want to advocate "CHOICE." They argue that it is >okay to "CHOOSE" to kill unborn children because they are smaller >and less developed than _________.
"blastocysts that have implanted". That’s your argument. Hypocrite, no one’s buying your bullshit. Just why do you draw the line at implantation? Are you _ever_ going to answer that question? — Greg Bernath gbern…@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.