PDA

View Full Version : Consultant To Vatican Rules In Letter That Kerry Be Excommunicated


RINGLEADER
10-18-2004, 11:58 PM
Saw that the New York Times just picked this up too...I'm not big on the Catholic church thing, but maybe someone who knows more about it could fill me in.

Anyway, here's the story:

Los Angeles, Oct. 18 (CWNews.com) - A consultant to the Vatican has said Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has incurred the penalty of excommunication from the Catholic Church.

The consultant made his statement in a highly unusual letter to Marc Balestrieri, a Los Angeles canon lawyer who formally sued John Kerry in ecclesiastical court for heresy.

Balestrieri, who launched his case earlier this year by filing a heresy complaint in Kerry's home archdiocese of Boston, told EWTN's "World Over" program on Friday that he had received an unusual, indirect communication from the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith regarding the pro-abortion stance.

That communication provides a basis, he said, to declare that any Catholic politician who says he is "personally opposed to abortion, but supports a woman's right to choose," incurs automatic excommunication. It also provided a basis for Balestrieri to broaden his canonical actions and file additional complaints against four more pro-abortion Catholic politicians: Democrat Senators Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Tom Harkin of Iowa; Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine; and former New York Governor Mario Cuomo, a Democrat.

The current action could be significant as it could undercut the entire debate over denying Communion to pro-abortion politicians. An excommunicated Catholic may not receive any of the sacraments of the Church, including the Eucharist, marriage, and even Christian burial. The type of excommunication outlined in the new information is called latae sententiae, which means that it occurs automatically and does not require a formal pronouncement by any Church official.

Balestrieri said he went to Rome in late August to discuss his canonical case with experts, including an official of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Less than 10 days later, he received a letter from Father Basil Cole, a Dominican theologian and consultant to the congregation based in Washington, DC, who said he had been "delegated" by Father Augustine DiNoia, undersecretary of the congregation, to give an unofficial response to the question that Balestrieri had submitted.

"I went to Rome in person to submit two critical questions to the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith," said Balestrieri. "The first: Whether or not the Church's teaching condemning any direct abortion is a dogma of Divine and Catholic Faith, and if the denial and doubt of the same constitutes heresy. The second: Whether or not a denial of the Church's teaching condemning every right to abortion also constitutes heresy. Father Cole, an expert theologian who studied the matter carefully, responded in the affirmative on both counts."

Father Cole wrote, "If a Catholic publicly and obstinately supports the civil right to abortion, knowing that the Church teaches officially against that legislation, he or she commits that heresy envisioned by Can. 751 of the Code [of Canon Law]. Provided that the presumptions of knowledge of the law and penalty and imputability are not rebutted in the external forum, one is automatically excommunicated ...."

Balestrieri said the response was unusual in several respects: that a response was provided to a layman at the request of the undersecretary in only 11 days, that the response was in writing, decisively clarifying the matter, and that it was in far greater detail than a typical official reply. "Normally, only a bishop may request such clarification of doctrine from the CDF, such responses usually take a much longer time to be received, and they are rarely made public," he said.

He also said that the original canonical complaint of heresy against Kerry had received so much response from the public that the tribunal of the Archdiocese of Boston has been deluged with thousands of letters from ordinary Catholics who wish to add their names to the complaint. The head of the archdiocesan tribunal reportedly told him that the case had not been rejected and was "now in the hands of the archbishop," that is, Archbishop Sean O'Malley of Boston.

Balestrieri, a self-identified political independent, says that his actions come as a defender of the faith and Holy Eucharist from sacrilege and scandal, not as one focused on an electoral outcome. "Our victory can come as early as today: It would be for Sen. Kerry, who publicly calls himself a Catholic and yet in violation of Canon Law continues to receive Holy Communion, to repent of his grave sin and publicly recant his abortion advocacy."

The complete text of Father Cole's response as well as other details of the pending cases are available on the DeFide.com web site.

Pants
10-19-2004, 12:49 AM
LMAO...

Kerry's examples:

So if a 12 year old is raped by her father and is inpreganted, she HAS to give birth to the child (which would be really fvcked up to begin with -- "Your daddy is also my daddy") and be a mother to the child at the age of 13?

If it is known that complications during birth are inevitable (which would cause the mother to die during labor), a mother has to chose her death instead of losing an embryo??

I'm not even going to mention rapings...

If you agree with those, well I don't even know what to say... but you shouldn't.

KCWolfman
10-19-2004, 12:52 AM
LMAO...

Kerry's examples:

So if a 12 year old is raped by her father and is inpreganted, she HAS to give birth to the child (which would be really fvcked up to begin with -- "Your daddy is also my daddy") and be a mother to the child at the age of 13?

If it is known that complications during birth are inevitable (which would cause the mother to die during labor), a mother has to chose her death instead of losing an embryo??

I'm not even going to mention rapings...

If you agree with those, well I don't even know what to say... but you shouldn't.
What you mention is less than one percent of all abortions.

The priest above is an overreactionary. If that is persecution, then my ex-wife needs to be imprisoned for life. But let's at least have a modicum of honesty when speaking on the subject of abortion.

Pants
10-19-2004, 01:01 AM
What you mention is less than one percent of all abortions.
The priest above is an overreactionary. If that is persecution, then my ex-wife needs to be imprisoned for life. But let's at least have a modicum of honesty when speaking on the subject of abortion.

I'd like to see what you would say if (God forbid) someone close to you was that "less than one percent". That's why Kerry is against an ABSOLUTE BAN. There have to be exceptions...

One might argue that it's better to lose an embryo than let a child grow up in a poor family which can't support it in any way (moral or financial) to become a criminal or another poor parent giving birth to more unlucky children.

**I AM NOT SAYING THAT'S THE CASE IN ALL ABORTIONS**

KCWolfman
10-19-2004, 01:19 AM
One might argue that it's better to lose an embryo than let a child grow up in a poor family which can't support it in any way (moral or financial) to become a criminal or another poor parent giving birth to more unlucky children.



Silly presumption. You have already convicted a child and it is not even born.

Pants
10-19-2004, 01:30 AM
Silly presumption. You have already convicted a child and it is not even born.

OK, so you are saying it's OK for a girl who gets around to have an accidentally concieved child at 16 when she has 4 siblings who cannot be supported by their illigal immigrant parents who work 18 hour shifts for shit earnings and live with 2 other families in the same house?

Tell me a realistic story of what would become of that child? Assuming it's a boy, he would grow up in horrible conditions, seeing that the only way for him to become "somebody" and get the respect and love of his peers would be to join a gang, and ... you know how the story goes.

Now, it doesn't have to be that way, but a lot of the time it is.

KCWolfman
10-19-2004, 01:48 AM
OK, so you are saying it's OK for a girl who gets around to have an accidentally concieved child at 16 when she has 4 siblings who cannot be supported by their illigal immigrant parents who work 18 hour shifts for shit earnings and live with 2 other families in the same house?

Tell me a realistic story of what would become of that child? Assuming it's a boy, he would grow up in horrible conditions, seeing that the only way for him to become "somebody" and get the respect and love of his peers would be to join a gang, and ... you know how the story goes.

Now, it doesn't have to be that way, but a lot of the time it is.
So, using your analogy, Stephen Hawkins should have been killed before being born so he would not suffer Lou Gehrigs Disease?

Or do you only want to kill poor children?

Pants
10-19-2004, 01:58 AM
So, using your analogy, Stephen Hawkins should have been killed before being born so he would not suffer Lou Gehrigs Disease?

Or do you only want to kill poor children?

Umm, what? I don't want to kill any children. I was providing some situations where abortion could be a better alternative to both the mother and the society. IMO an embryo is not a child. If you argue that it is, then why not argue that every sperm is a child. That would make me a mass child murderer. Everytime I mastrubated, I commited a genocide... wow.

I also know I would not want to let my mother/wife give birth if I knew there was a great risk of them dying during child birth. I'd be pretty pissed at the government who'd rather see my wife die than lose a POTENTIAL child. However sad it might be to one to lose an embryo, I think it's a lot sadder to lose one's wife/mother. I don't know how the fvkc you can argue with that.

Ari Chi3fs
10-19-2004, 03:41 AM
so KCWolfman, say your wife is brutally raped by 6'5 Bubba Jackson, and then becomes pregnant... You keep the kid?

KC Jones
10-19-2004, 06:36 AM
Next they should ex-communicate any catholic politician who supports the death penalty.

Yes, the death penalty is also against church teaching as all life is considered sacred.

Amnorix
10-19-2004, 06:54 AM
I really enjoy it when the Catholic Church injects itself into US politics. :shake:

Cochise
10-19-2004, 06:59 AM
One might argue that it's better to lose an embryo than let a child grow up in a poor family which can't support it in any way (moral or financial) to become a criminal or another poor parent giving birth to more unlucky children.

Well why not just go around euthanizing them at 10 years old if that becomes the situation?

Is having no prospect of financial prosperity a good reason to end a human life? (remember that it is a human life, even sKerry says life begins at conception)

Then why don't we bear that out to its logical conclusion? Just put orphans and the children of the poor and the penniless elderly, all of whom are a financial drag on society, down like stray animals too?

memyselfI
10-19-2004, 07:04 AM
Saw that the New York Times just picked this up too...I'm not big on the Catholic church thing, but maybe someone who knows more about it could fill me in.

Anyway, here's the story:

Los Angeles, Oct. 18 (CWNews.com) - A consultant to the Vatican has said Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has incurred the penalty of excommunication from the Catholic Church.



Excellent. Being persecuted by his religion can only help him with those who would normally disagree with his political stands but who think the Catholic Church is a powerful and a corrupt organization who has no business inserting itself into the political process. :thumb:

Amnorix
10-19-2004, 07:05 AM
Well why not just go around euthanizing them at 10 years old if that becomes the situation?

Is having no prospect of financial prosperity a good reason to end a human life? (remember that it is a human life, even sKerry says life begins at conception)

Then why don't we bear that out to its logical conclusion? Just put orphans and the children of the poor and the penniless elderly, all of whom are a financial drag on society, down like stray animals too?Only if the individual consents and has a terminal illness, as certified by a doctor. In the case of an individual who is not of legal age, at least parental permission would be required, I would think.

I haven't thought too much about younger people. I'm much more focused on the elderly.

Tell me -- what would you do if, hypothetically -- both your parents had alzheimers, both lived, say 5+ years without knowing who they or anyone else was, and later you were diagnosed with early stage alzheimers in, say, your mid 70s. :shrug: Would you not want the right to end your life on dignified terms?

Cochise
10-19-2004, 07:06 AM
so KCWolfman, say your wife is brutally raped by 6'5 Bubba Jackson, and then becomes pregnant... You keep the kid?

Your point would be valid if sKerry only supported aboritions in rape or incest cases.

But rather, he supports it in every case. Partial birth, abortion on demand, government funding of abortions with tax dollars, voted against Laci and Connor's law, voted against notifying parents of minors seeking abortions.

sKerry throws the 'life begins at conception' bone at the religious, but since he then would say that "personhood" starts later, it doesn't mean anything but as an attempt to eat the cake too.

So your rape example doesn't really have any bearing on this election because I dont think either candidate would prevent the rape victim from having one.

Cochise
10-19-2004, 07:07 AM
Tell me -- what would you do if, hypothetically -- both your parents had alzheimers, both lived, say 5+ years without knowing who they or anyone else was, and later you were diagnosed with early stage alzheimers in, say, your mid 70s. :shrug: Would you not want the right to end your life on dignified terms?

No. It isn't 'my' life and when I go is not my decision to make.

Amnorix
10-19-2004, 07:07 AM
So your rape example doesn't really have any bearing on this election because I dont think either candidate would prevent the rape victim from having one.

So the circumstances of the impregnation dictate whether abortion is legal or not? :hmmm:

Amnorix
10-19-2004, 07:09 AM
No. It isn't 'my' life and when I go is not my decision to make.

I'll repeat it, just in case you misread it -- my hypothetical posits that you are the one who are diagnosed with alzheimers, now that you are in your 70s. Previously, both your parents had alzheimers and lingered, witless, for 5+ years.

What do you do?

If you did read my hypothetical correctly, then I ask -- whose life is it, if it isn't yours?

Cochise
10-19-2004, 07:11 AM
I'll repeat it, just in case you misread it -- my hypothetical posits that you are the one who are diagnosed with alzheimers, now that you are in your 70s. Previously, both your parents had alzheimers and lingered, witless, for 5+ years.

What do you do?

If you did read my hypothetical correctly, then I ask -- whose life is it, if it isn't yours?

Yeah, I read what you were saying. Just don't think that would be my place to decide.

Cochise
10-19-2004, 07:12 AM
So the circumstances of the impregnation dictate whether abortion is legal or not? :hmmm:

I meant that Bush is not opposed in rape cases, if I am not mistaken. So the circumstance he outlined would be permitted by either candidate, right?

Amnorix
10-19-2004, 07:14 AM
Yeah, I read what you were saying. Just don't think that would be my place to decide.

You've avoided the question, I see.

Unless I'm misreading you -- kindly do not impose your religious beliefs on my ability to end to my life in a dignified manner under extremely difficult circumstances.

I can at least understand the abortion debate. This one I absolutely do NOT understand.

mlyonsd
10-19-2004, 07:14 AM
Being a Catholic, the whole being able to confess your sins and then saying a few Hail Mary's for forgiveness has never made a lot of sense.

If I was a priest I'd hand out tasks to achieve forgiveness. Like mow the church lawn, shovel the snow off the church steps, etc. Maybe even hard labor for the worst sins.

If this article is true it's the first time I could ever remember the church putting teeth into a ruling. Maybe the pope was in a bad mood or something.

Amnorix
10-19-2004, 07:15 AM
I meant that Bush is not opposed in rape cases, if I am not mistaken. So the circumstance he outlined would be permitted by either candidate, right?

I neither know nor care what Bush's position on this issue is, and I repeat -- why should the circumstances of impregnation impact the legality of abortion?

Oh right, because this is a battle of people imposing their moral beliefs on society as a whole.

2bikemike
10-19-2004, 07:18 AM
I have a hard time with the abortion debate. I for one am not completely against it. I do think partial birth abortions are completely unethical.

And as a father I sure as hell don't want my teenage daughter to be able to waltz in to any clinic and get an abortion without parental consent. Parents are held responsbile for the actions of their kids but then in this issue parents are taken completely out of the loop. IMHO that is completely assinine.

BTW when I got a vasectomy I had to get my estranged wife to sign off on it! Does that make any sense?

Cochise
10-19-2004, 07:20 AM
You've avoided the question, I see.

Unless I'm misreading you -- kindly do not impose your religious beliefs on my ability to end to my life in a dignified manner under extremely difficult circumstances.

I can at least understand the abortion debate. This one I absolutely do NOT understand.

No, no that wasn't what I was saying. I thought you were asking for my opinion on what I would do if it were me. I said that I don't believe I would ask to have myself euthanized. I have no real opinion on the legality of the subject. I guess if you want to do it I don't care.

The abortion question is different IMO because in that case, you're dealing death out to someone else. I suppose if you want to do it to yourself then I wouldn't stop you.

Amnorix
10-19-2004, 07:20 AM
BTW when I got a vasectomy I had to get my estranged wife to sign off on it! Does that make any sense?

No it doesn't, although that was a doctor's procedure or something, I'd expect, and not a law.

If you'd argued about it enough, you probably could have gotten the procedure without the wife's consent. At least, I'd imagine so. :shrug:

Cochise
10-19-2004, 07:21 AM
I neither know nor care what Bush's position on this issue is, and I repeat -- why should the circumstances of impregnation impact the legality of abortion?

Oh right, because this is a battle of people imposing their moral beliefs on society as a whole.

Damnit you, figure out what I'm saying before you work yourself into a lather :p

Amnorix
10-19-2004, 07:24 AM
Damnit you, figure out what I'm saying before you work yourself into a lather :p

That's alright -- I'm going to focus on the euthenasia debate if it goes anywhere. Abortion has been argued a thousand times more often, here and elsewhere, than the euthenasia issue, which I suspect will become a hot topic a generation or so from now.

Mr. Kotter
10-19-2004, 07:33 AM
That communication provides a basis, he said, to declare that any Catholic politician who says he is "personally opposed to abortion, but supports a woman's right to choose," incurs automatic excommunication. It also provided a basis for Balestrieri to broaden his canonical actions and file additional complaints against four more pro-abortion Catholic politicians: Democrat Senators Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Tom Harkin of Iowa; Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine; and former New York Governor Mario Cuomo, a Democrat

Good for the Catholic church. Politicians shouldn't be able to have it both ways; there are consequences for decisions....if they decide to oppose their church's official stance, there ought to be consequences. :thumb:

Cochise
10-19-2004, 07:53 AM
Good for the Catholic church. Politicians shouldn't be able to have it both ways; there are consequences for decisions....if they decide to oppose their church's official stance, there ought to be consequences. :thumb:

I have a dim view of the RCC, but I respect them for this.

They've got a politician who is essentially using their name for marketing purposes while at the same time opposing and acting against what they consider one of their most important doctrines. Good for them, for reprimanding him. I'm glad they don't seem to want to let him have his cake and eat it too.

KCWolfman
10-19-2004, 09:06 AM
Umm, what? I don't want to kill any children. I was providing some situations where abortion could be a better alternative to both the mother and the society. IMO an embryo is not a child. If you argue that it is, then why not argue that every sperm is a child. That would make me a mass child murderer. Everytime I mastrubated, I commited a genocide... wow.

I also know I would not want to let my mother/wife give birth if I knew there was a great risk of them dying during child birth. I'd be pretty pissed at the government who'd rather see my wife die than lose a POTENTIAL child. However sad it might be to one to lose an embryo, I think it's a lot sadder to lose one's wife/mother. I don't know how the fvkc you can argue with that.

No, your sperm has your DNA, the egg has the mothers DNA. The embryo is a separate entity from the moment of collusion.

As to the second statement, once again you are using a MINORITY of abortions in the US to support your stance for the majority. Also, if you "knew" she was a high risk, shouldn't her tubes be tied - or are you going to slice the minority even smaller and say abortion should be legal for all due to the chance that a woman with tied fallopian tubes can get pregnant?

KCWolfman
10-19-2004, 09:09 AM
Next they should ex-communicate any catholic politician who supports the death penalty.

Yes, the death penalty is also against church teaching as all life is considered sacred.
No, it's not. The tenants of Christianity also teach that when you live in man's world, you live by man's law and are subject to judgment by man.

While Christ taught love, Christ never spoke on what to do with a first degree murderer. He never said "lock them up forever" or "lock them up for a week and let them go" or "kill them to protect society". He said "forgive them", and as an individual, you should. But they should still be subject to the laws of man.

memyselfI
10-19-2004, 09:11 AM
I have a dim view of the RCC, but I respect them for this.

They've got a politician who is essentially using their name for marketing purposes while at the same time opposing and acting against what they consider one of their most important doctrines. Good for them, for reprimanding him. I'm glad they don't seem to want to let him have his cake and eat it too.

Well then let them excommunicate much of their economic base because I've seen polls where Catholics disproportionately HAVE abortions and support the RTC as well...

KCWolfman
10-19-2004, 09:11 AM
so KCWolfman, say your wife is brutally raped by 6'5 Bubba Jackson, and then becomes pregnant... You keep the kid?
Again, less than 1% of all abortions are due to rape. Your argument is without base.

Look at it this way - If your family is starving and you are out of work with no chance of food for the next 3 days, would you rob a bank if you thought you could get away with it? If you answered "yes" then shouldn't we make bank robbery legal for everyone so those people who need it could use it?

KCWolfman
10-19-2004, 09:12 AM
I really enjoy it when the Catholic Church injects itself into US politics. :shake:
I agree. It is BS and a shame to the Church.

KCWolfman
10-19-2004, 09:13 AM
Only if the individual consents and has a terminal illness, as certified by a doctor. In the case of an individual who is not of legal age, at least parental permission would be required, I would think.

I haven't thought too much about younger people. I'm much more focused on the elderly.

Tell me -- what would you do if, hypothetically -- both your parents had alzheimers, both lived, say 5+ years without knowing who they or anyone else was, and later you were diagnosed with early stage alzheimers in, say, your mid 70s. :shrug: Would you not want the right to end your life on dignified terms?
Why do you need a law to kill yourself? That is a silly argument. Put the gun in your mouth and pull the trigger. What does it matter if it is legal or not? There is no law that can touch you at that point.

KCWolfman
10-19-2004, 09:15 AM
That's alright -- I'm going to focus on the euthenasia debate if it goes anywhere. Abortion has been argued a thousand times more often, here and elsewhere, than the euthenasia issue, which I suspect will become a hot topic a generation or so from now.
Euthanasia - What a pretty word for kill. The definition of Euthanasia is a total lack of responsibility and forcing your issues upon others. How nice you can have someone else shoulder their conscience with your burden after you are gone.

memyselfI
10-19-2004, 09:18 AM
I agree. It is BS and a shame to the Church.

Uh, shame IS the Church...

perhaps disgust would be better. :hmmm: (But good for you for feeling uncomfortable with their position)

Boyceofsummer
10-19-2004, 09:18 AM
the Catholic Church's involvement and/or cover-up of sexual abuse of young boys. Fine.

KCWolfman
10-19-2004, 09:20 AM
Uh, shame IS the Church...

perhaps disgust would be better. :hmmm: (But good for you for feeling uncomfortable with their position)
Ahh, the venom is released. Your hatred and bigotry is still strong.

memyselfI
10-19-2004, 09:22 AM
Ahh, the venom is released. Your hatred and bigotry is still strong.

Oh puhleeeeeeeeeeeeeeese. Any current, former, or recovered Catholic will tell you their entire M.O. is built on guilt and shame. Now whether or not folks believe that is a valid means of seeking redemption (via confession and forgiveness) is a different matter but to pretend like saying the Catholic Church is built on shame and guilt is an insult is about as dis-honest as saying that Mary Cheney is a lesbian is an insult.

This instance is a perfect case in point. They are trying to shame and guilt Kerry into backing off his stance. If he doesn't confess and seek redemption he's not a believer in their eyes... :rolleyes:

mlyonsd
10-19-2004, 09:24 AM
Uh, shame IS the Church...

perhaps disgust would be better. :hmmm: (But good for you for feeling uncomfortable with their position)

Disgust is a little strong in my book. For me "amazed" is closer. You said it yourself, with their actions they run the risk of damaging their financial base.

Cochise
10-19-2004, 09:25 AM
their entire M.O. is built on guilt and shame. Now whether or not folks believe that is a valid means of seeking redemption is a different matter ...They are trying to shame and guilt [whoever] into backing off his stance. If he doesn't seek confess and seek redemption he's not a believer in their eyes...

Sounds like liberalism.

memyselfI
10-19-2004, 09:27 AM
Sounds like liberalism.

Really? I've heard the problem with liberalism is LACK of shame and guilt and holding folks 'accountable' but rather being too 'relative'. I wish CONS would quit flip/flopping... ROFL

Mr. Kotter
10-19-2004, 09:30 AM
Disgust is a little strong in my book. For me "amazed" is closer. You said it yourself, with their actions they run the risk of damaging their financial base.

Financial base? A few rich politicians who are public hypocrits, sure.

But I suspect they won't pursue less visible parishoners. They are making an example of those most visible. As they should, IMO.

RINGLEADER
10-19-2004, 09:33 AM
I'd like to see what you would say if (God forbid) someone close to you was that "less than one percent". That's why Kerry is against an ABSOLUTE BAN. There have to be exceptions...

One might argue that it's better to lose an embryo than let a child grow up in a poor family which can't support it in any way (moral or financial) to become a criminal or another poor parent giving birth to more unlucky children.

**I AM NOT SAYING THAT'S THE CASE IN ALL ABORTIONS**


Then why did Kerry vote against parental notification of abortions being done by minors even if it includes an exemption for the scenario that you lay out?

Anyway, my question had more to do with the whole Catholicism label/belief and whether something like this would even really matter to most people.

Cochise
10-19-2004, 09:34 AM
Really? I've heard the problem with liberalism is LACK of shame and guilt and holding folks 'accountable' but rather being too 'relative'. I wish CONS would quit flip/flopping... ROFL

Really, is that why I keep being told that I have no compassion for people? That I should be ashamed of myself for not wanting the government to "help" with social problems? That I should be ashamed of what America is and want to be like the rest of the world?

mlyonsd
10-19-2004, 09:36 AM
Financial base? A few rich politicians who are public hypocrits, sure.

But I suspect they won't pursue less visible parishoners. They are making an example of those most visible. As they should, IMO.

I don't think they will pursue less visible parishoners either. I do think though that this can do nothing but hurt their base by pushing people out of the church in the long term. Course that's only my opinion.

I can't think of another example where they've made this kind of decision so to me it's amazing.

Mr. Kotter
10-19-2004, 09:36 AM
Really, is that why I keep being told that I have no compassion for people? That I should be ashamed of myself for not wanting the government to "help" with social problems? That I should be ashamed of what America is and want to be like the rest of the world?

Touche' :thumb:

patteeu
10-19-2004, 10:14 AM
I'll repeat it, just in case you misread it -- my hypothetical posits that you are the one who are diagnosed with alzheimers, now that you are in your 70s. Previously, both your parents had alzheimers and lingered, witless, for 5+ years.

What do you do?

If you did read my hypothetical correctly, then I ask -- whose life is it, if it isn't yours?

Isn't there a pretty big set of distinctions between adult suicide and abortion? In one case, an adult is making a choice for him/herself and in the other the child's fate is being decided by others.

patteeu
10-19-2004, 10:17 AM
You've avoided the question, I see.

Unless I'm misreading you -- kindly do not impose your religious beliefs on my ability to end to my life in a dignified manner under extremely difficult circumstances.

I can at least understand the abortion debate. This one I absolutely do NOT understand.

I really don't get your comparison. Who would be stopping you from committing suicide? Others may not like it, they may say bad things about you for having done it (as is their right), and in some places we may even have laws against it, but no one can stop you or punish you after the fact.

KCWolfman
10-19-2004, 11:09 AM
Oh puhleeeeeeeeeeeeeeese. Any current, former, or recovered Catholic will tell you their entire M.O. is built on guilt and shame.

Untrue

KCWolfman
10-19-2004, 11:10 AM
I really don't get your comparison. Who would be stopping you from committing suicide? Others may not like it, they may say bad things about you for having done it (as is their right), and in some places we may even have laws against it, but no one can stop you or punish you after the fact.
ha, I beat you to that one hours ago.

Convict a man who commits suicide - big deal.

memyselfI
10-19-2004, 11:22 AM
Really, is that why I keep being told that I have no compassion for people? That I should be ashamed of myself for not wanting the government to "help" with social problems? That I should be ashamed of what America is and want to be like the rest of the world?

Well, while it's true some might think of you as an uncompassoniate asshole, the Liberals are not telling you that you were born sinful and are going to hell unless you live like they tell you. It's not their way or the highway the way that the Catholic Church is.

KCWolfman
10-19-2004, 11:23 AM
Well, while it's true some might think of you as an uncompassoniate asshole, the Liberals are not telling you that you were born sinful and are going to hell unless you live like they tell you. It's not their way or the highway the way that the Catholic Church is.
true, it is quite the opposite. The liberals will tell you nothing is your fault and that those wealthier than you should take care of you because of your shortcomings.

Hel'n
10-19-2004, 11:48 AM
Excellent. Being persecuted by his religion can only help him with those who would normally disagree with his political stands but who think the Catholic Church is a powerful and a corrupt organization who has no business inserting itself into the political process. :thumb:


Yeah, I feel the same way. The Church is practically putting the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval on the guy as far as many women are concerned...

Mr. Kotter
10-19-2004, 11:51 AM
....The Church is practically putting the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval on the guy as far as many women are concerned...

Bigoted, Anti-Catholic, Anti-Religious Women, perhaps.... :hmmm:

KCWolfman
10-19-2004, 11:56 AM
Bigoted, Anti-Catholic, Anti-Religious Women, perhaps.... :hmmm:
You mean Duhnise's social circle?

Mr. Kotter
10-19-2004, 12:03 PM
You mean Duhnise's social circle?

Exactly. ROFL

Cochise
10-19-2004, 12:05 PM
Well, while it's true some might think of you as an uncompassoniate asshole, the Liberals are not telling you that you were born sinful and are going to hell unless you live like they tell you. It's not their way or the highway the way that the Catholic Church is.

I guess that would interfere with the liberal doctrine that everyone is someone else's victim and that no one should be able to make any kind of a moral judgement on anything.

Hel'n
10-19-2004, 12:09 PM
Bigoted, Anti-Catholic, Anti-Religious Women, perhaps.... :hmmm:

You mean like these?

=================================================
Meet the X factor: Undecided women
Mighty bloc of voters has yet to rate its priorities in year of war and economic uncertainty

Sunday, October 17, 2004
BY PEGGY O'CROWLEY
Star-Ledger Staff

Dawn Childers, a 38-year-old single mother struggling to raise her daughter on an office manager's salary, is worried about the economy. A fierce defender of women's reproduction rights, she would not want to see anti-abortion conservatives appointed to the Supreme Court. On those issues, she's for John Kerry.

But she also is opposed to stem cell research, and she feels the incumbent should finish the war he started. On those issues, she's for George W. Bush.

As the weeks whittle to days in this presidential race, undecided woman voters like Childers may be the ones who determine the election.

"At first I was more for Kerry, now I am leaning to Bush," she said outside the apartment building in Springfield to which she moved after selling her house to become eligible for government assistance. "Kerry is more up on domestic issues, but right now, finishing the war over there is probably a priority.

"But in the next few weeks, my vote is up for grabs."

Women voters are critical because there are more of them -- in New Jersey they make up 54 percent of the electorate -- and they go to the polls in higher numbers than men do. Traditionally, women vote Democratic on issues that affect families: health care, education, employment, Social Security and Medicare. That gender gap was what gave Al Gore the popular vote in 2000.

"We want to create a gap, because when women vote, Democrats usually win," said Blair MacInnes, who heads Women for Kerry in New Jersey.

The wild card in this campaign is that women are also looking for the candidate they feel can best protect the United States from terrorism and resolve the war in Iraq. That may be the main factor for the white, suburban, married women who will vote for President Bush, women who have been dubbed "security moms."

"We don't use that term, but if you want to characterize them like that, sure," said Jennifer Millwiser, a Bush campaign spokeswoman. "The number one issue is safety and security. Women want a strong and decisive leader who will fight and win the war on terror."

She said Bush's education initiative, No Child Left Behind, and the fact he has more female advisers and Cabinet members than any other president also appeal to women.

The Bush campaign has a national program, "W Is for Women," to get out the women's vote on Nov. 2.

Susan Carroll, a senior scholar at the Center For American Women in Politics at Rutgers University's Eagleton Institute, said: "Gender differences are most critical in a close election, and so far this is what it's going to be. Kerry has to win women and win them by a sizable majority both in New Jersey and nationally. The majority of men will clearly go for Bush, so Kerry needs a majority of women almost equal in size."


ANGER IN THE MIDST

In the wake of the first debate between the Republican president and the Democratic senator from Massachusetts, 51 percent of women in New Jersey preferred Kerry, compared with 42 percent of men, according to an Oct. 8 Star-Ledger-Eagleton-Rutgers Poll. Men favored Bush by a margin of 4 percentage points.

And 54 percent of women said the war in Iraq sidetracked the war on terrorism, compared with 50 percent of men, said Patrick Murray, the acting director of the poll.

Lynda Empoliti of Maplewood mirrors those findings.

The registered Democrat and at-home mother of four said she is concerned about the war, the rising federal deficit and Supreme Court nominees who might endanger legal abortion.

"We went into Iraq as bullies. We don't have a particular coalition, and we're getting slaughtered," she said.

Domestic issues loom large for Jeanne Borgers of Glen Ridge, who runs a business with her husband. "I'm especially outraged at outsourcing," said Borgers, a member of Mothers Opposing Bush, one of several grassroots groups run by and aimed at mothers. "We were a manufacturing economy, and that's gone. Now we're a service economy, and that's going, too? We should have our own people in those jobs."

During the final presidential debate Wednesday, Kerry's emphasis on health care and a mention of pay equity were clearly aimed at women, Carroll said.

"Health care is a huge concern for women," she said. And on the equal-pay issue, "focus groups have shown that women voters who are undecided and are economically marginal resonate to that idea."

Nonetheless, some security moms are willing to put family issues on the back burner because they feel they will be safer with Bush remaining in the White House.

"On a lot of issues I'm more left-wing -- abortion, social programs -- but security is a huge issue for me," said Anna Maria Zoubek of Maplewood, an at-home mother of two and an independent who said she will vote for Bush.

Pollsters argue how important security moms are. Nationally, 22 percent of woman voters fit the security mom profile, according to Democratic pollster Anna Greenberg. And of those, many would vote for Bush anyway, she maintains in a paper that was widely circulated last month, "The Security Mom Myth."

Linda Bergin of Montclair is a lifelong Republican who was galvanized by the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Bergin, an Air Force veteran who is a stay-at-home mother to twins, became the New Jersey state captain for Moms4Bush, a group that supports the president, especially on terrorism.

"In the security vein, he's strong, he's consistent, and he supports the military. I think he will lead us on a better path," Bergin said.


THE SINGLE WOMEN

MacInnes said one of her group's most important tasks is to appeal to divorced, widowed or never-married women who don't vote.

"In 2000, 22 million single women in the United States did not vote. They are more likely to vote Democratic because they are more in jeopardy economically than their married counterparts," MacInnes said.

One divorced woman who does not need wooing is Barbara Reynolds of Galloway Township, director of a child care center at Richard Stockton College of New Jersey and a member of Mothers Opposing Bush.

"I've worked with mothers for 25 years, and being a mother, I felt I had to join MOB and get the word out," said Reynolds, who worries about her 14-year-son and the potential for a military draft.

But the gender gap can cut both ways. Kerri Proper of Mountainside, who has a toddler and is expecting a second child next month, is a staunch security mom. "Israel is important to me, and security, and Bush is stronger," she said.

Her husband, David Proper, a lawyer, said he will vote for Kerry. He said of Bush: "It's the whole idea that he went to war with people dying for a cause that I'm not entirely sure was justified. The idea of my child going to war for something like that scares me."

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-0/109798867786680.xml

Mr. Kotter
10-19-2004, 12:25 PM
You mean like these?

....
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-0/109798867786680.xml

No, no....actually I meant you, Duhnise, Pam, and the like.

memyselfI
10-19-2004, 03:18 PM
Bigoted, Anti-Catholic, Anti-Religious Women, perhaps.... :hmmm:

Speaking of 'bigots'...has it been a WEEK already???

My, time flies. :hmmm:

KC Jones
10-19-2004, 03:48 PM
No, it's not.

Yes it is.

The modern Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church has been unwavering on this issue. The church teaches that capitol punishment is an abomination.

http://www.silk.net/RelEd/capital.htm

The only time in which the right to life is not defended by the church is when it is when the death of an individual is the only means by which to prevent more deaths/murders.

Pants
10-19-2004, 03:51 PM
KCWolfman, I can't believe how fvcking ignorant you are. Here's a little statistic for you...

There have been 44,670,812 abortions in the US since 1973. IF and that's a big if the cases I listed were ONLY 1% of that number that would make 446,708 individuals and their families shit outta luck according to your convictions.

I do not know what you base your "1%" statement on, it'd be nice if you could prove it.



Agian, ~~

If a child cannot be supported by his/her parent(s) and will not be brought up to be a decent society member, I don't think giving birth is a good choice.

You all argue how a child has no choice when it is aborted and it's all up to the parents, well if the parents didn't want the child in the frst place the child wouldn't be born anyway, and abortions happen when the parents DO NOT want to have a child. An embryo has no knowledge of it's existance.

Plus WTF is your argument about women having their tubes tied? WTF does that have to do with anything, a woman might not know there will be complications until she is pregnant.

Pitt Gorilla
10-19-2004, 03:57 PM
So, using your analogy, Stephen Hawkins should have been killed before being born so he would not suffer Lou Gehrigs Disease?

Or do you only want to kill poor children?Who the f*ck is Stephen Hawkins? Is he related to Stephen Hawking? :)

Pants
10-19-2004, 04:04 PM
Who the f*ck is Stephen Hawkins? Is he related to Stephen Hawking? :)

MC Hawking says: "Fvck the creationists!"

Donger
10-19-2004, 04:06 PM
KCWolfman, I can't believe how fvcking ignorant you are. Here's a little statistic for you...

There have been 44,670,812 abortions in the US since 1973. IF and that's a big if the cases I listed were ONLY 1% of that number that would make 446,708 individuals and their families shit outta luck according to your convictions.

I do not know what you base your "1%" statement on, it'd be nice if you could prove it.

I've seen percentages range from less than 1% to right around 2%.

Pants
10-19-2004, 04:12 PM
I've seen percentages range from less than 1% to right around 2%.

Percentages of what? Rape or complications or social inability to support the child?

And even if it is 1% percent, I'd like to see what you'd have to say when your wife was about to die if she didn't abort, but you couldn't because it was illegal...

Donger
10-19-2004, 04:16 PM
Percentages of what? Rape or complications or social inability to support the child?

And even if it is 1% percent, I'd like to see what you'd have to say when your wife was about to die if she didn't abort, but you couldn't because it was illegal...

Percentage of abortions where the stated reason for said abortion was either rape or incest.

As to your question, I'd probably find a way to make it happen. I believe that abortion shoudl be legal in the case of rape/incest, as well as if the mother will die.

Pants
10-19-2004, 04:28 PM
Percentage of abortions where the stated reason for said abortion was either rape or incest.

As to your question, I'd probably find a way to make it happen. I believe that abortion shoudl be legal in the case of rape/incest, as well as if the mother will die.

Exactly what Kerry said. He said there would have to be excptions in the ban, while Bush said "No exceptions, it's a simple choice" (not an actual quote but gets the meaning across).

WilliamTheIrish
10-19-2004, 05:03 PM
They haven't sent me my letter yet.

Mr. Kotter
10-19-2004, 05:07 PM
Speaking of 'bigots'...has it been a WEEK already???

My, time flies. :hmmm:

Yep, we are both bigots; the difference is, I'll admit it.

I'm intolerent of stupid people.

You base your intolerence on genetalia and religion. :)

Pitt Gorilla
10-19-2004, 05:13 PM
Yep, we are both bigots; the difference is, I'll admit it.

I'm intolerent of stupid people.How do you live with yourself? :)

Mr. Kotter
10-19-2004, 05:14 PM
How do you live with yourself? :)

nlm

:p

KCWolfman
10-19-2004, 05:15 PM
KCWolfman, I can't believe how fvcking ignorant you are. Here's a little statistic for you...

There have been 44,670,812 abortions in the US since 1973. IF and that's a big if the cases I listed were ONLY 1% of that number that would make 446,708 individuals and their families shit outta luck according to your convictions.

I do not know what you base your "1%" statement on, it'd be nice if you could prove it.



Agian, ~~

If a child cannot be supported by his/her parent(s) and will not be brought up to be a decent society member, I don't think giving birth is a good choice.

You all argue how a child has no choice when it is aborted and it's all up to the parents, well if the parents didn't want the child in the frst place the child wouldn't be born anyway, and abortions happen when the parents DO NOT want to have a child. An embryo has no knowledge of it's existance.

Plus WTF is your argument about women having their tubes tied? WTF does that have to do with anything, a woman might not know there will be complications until she is pregnant.

#1. Do you call every "fvcking ignorant" when they disagree with you? It makes you look more childish and uninformed than you truly are.

#2. Go back and check the abortion threads. There are plenty that link the Alan Guttmacher Institute. I am tired of posting it once a week because you "fvking ignorant" morons don't know how to use Google or are too stupid to remember a single statistic.

#3. I never stated ALL abortions should be considered illegal. I stated your "well 1% really need this so we need to make it legal" argument is without a brain cell of thought.

#4. Plenty of things don't have self awareness. That doesn't automatically give us the right to slaughter them when they are inconvenient.

#5. It is nice you add the "she could have found out later" stipulation to your argument AFTER the fact. Too bad that wasn't what you originally stated


Come back to speak when you can do so civilly. If I need someone of an IQ at 78 telling me I am ignorant, I will give you a call.

Donger
10-19-2004, 05:18 PM
An embryo has no knowledge of it's existance.

Is that an opinion?

Donger
10-19-2004, 05:18 PM
#2. Go back and check the abortion threads. There are plenty that link the Alan Guttmacher Institute. I am tired of posting it once a week because you "fvking ignorant" morons don't know how to use Google or are too stupid to remember a single statistic.


Ouch.

Pitt Gorilla
10-19-2004, 05:23 PM
#1. Do you call every "fvcking ignorant" when they disagree with you? It makes you look more childish and uninformed than you truly are.

I am tired of posting it once a week because you "fvking ignorant" morons don't know how to use Google or are too stupid to remember a single statistic. Oh, the hypocrisy...

KCWolfman
10-19-2004, 05:24 PM
Is that an opinion?
Not according to his VP Potential.

I wonder what Metro thinks about Edwards supporting the existence of an "embryo" while showing how horribly it hurts in court?


Damn the horns of a dilemma for our friend.

KCWolfman
10-19-2004, 05:24 PM
Oh, the hypocrisy...
I asked for stats from the Guttmacher institute?

Donger
10-19-2004, 05:25 PM
Not according to his VP Potential.

I wonder what Metro thinks about Edwards supporting the existence of an "embryo" while showing how horribly it hurts in court?


Damn the horns of a dilemma for our friend.

Probably something along the lines of, "Well, yeah. But Bush smirks."

Pants
10-19-2004, 07:57 PM
#1. Do you call every "fvcking ignorant" when they disagree with you? It makes you look more childish and uninformed than you truly are.

#2. Go back and check the abortion threads. There are plenty that link the Alan Guttmacher Institute. I am tired of posting it once a week because you "fvking ignorant" morons don't know how to use Google or are too stupid to remember a single statistic.

#3. I never stated ALL abortions should be considered illegal. I stated your "well 1% really need this so we need to make it legal" argument is without a brain cell of thought.

#4. Plenty of things don't have self awareness. That doesn't automatically give us the right to slaughter them when they are inconvenient.

#5. It is nice you add the "she could have found out later" stipulation to your argument AFTER the fact. Too bad that wasn't what you originally stated


Come back to speak when you can do so civilly. If I need someone of an IQ at 78 telling me I am ignorant, I will give you a call.

The bold parts are where you lied. I don't know what gave you the idea that I changed my opinions about potential mother deaths. As you can recall I was very surprised when you mentioned "tying the tubes" if you know that there will be cmplications. I was not even aware that one has the ability to know whethere there will be complications BEFORE the pregnancy occurs, but again I'm no doctor. Please find a qoute, **cough**liar**cough**.

What I was trying to prove was that Kerry was right when he said that there have to be exceptions and there cannot be an absolute ban on abortions. Bush, however said it was a simple choice and there was no grey area. How does my 1% argument is without a brain cell of thought?

My personal conviction that abortions should be legal is secondary here, as it is nothing but an opinion.

Good game, liar.

KCWolfman
10-20-2004, 12:20 AM
The bold parts are where you lied. I don't know what gave you the idea that I changed my opinions about potential mother deaths. As you can recall I was very surprised when you mentioned "tying the tubes" if you know that there will be cmplications. I was not even aware that one has the ability to know whethere there will be complications BEFORE the pregnancy occurs, but again I'm no doctor. Please find a qoute, **cough**liar**cough**.

What I was trying to prove was that Kerry was right when he said that there have to be exceptions and there cannot be an absolute ban on abortions. Bush, however said it was a simple choice and there was no grey area. How does my 1% argument is without a brain cell of thought?

My personal conviction that abortions should be legal is secondary here, as it is nothing but an opinion.

Good game, liar.
Here we go with the next one.

Okay - Quote me where I stated ALL ABORTTIONS SHOULD BE ILLEGAL (other than this text). I have not stated thus. You are a dipsh*t if you think I will be called a liar without proof.

Here is your earlier quote
I also know I would not want to let my mother/wife give birth if I knew there was a great risk of them dying during child birth. I'd be pretty pissed at the government who'd rather see my wife die than lose a POTENTIAL child. However sad it might be to one to lose an embryo, I think it's a lot sadder to lose one's wife/mother. I don't know how the fvkc you can argue with that.
Please show me in this quote where you indicated the mother knew she had complications AFTER the conception.

That is the bad thing about the internet, metrowaffler, we can quote you verbatim at any time. None of my statements you quoted are false in anyway.

However, for calling me a liar, enjoy a huge dollop of negative rep.

memyselfI
10-20-2004, 06:50 AM
Yep, we are both bigots; the difference is, I'll admit it.

I'm intolerent of stupid people.

You base your intolerence on genetalia and religion. :)

Speaking of 'stupid'...

the 'difference' is I'm not stooooopid enough to call someone a outright bigoted name and then say it's a 'joke.' Some here are. :hmmm:

Mr. Kotter
10-20-2004, 07:00 AM
Speaking of 'stupid'...

the 'difference' is I'm not stooooopid enough to call someone a outright bigoted name and then say it's a 'joke.' Some here are. :hmmm:

If you never "joke" with your friends in bigoted ways, you must be a radical liberal woman....which, of course you are.

Some of my liberal black male friends even call each other the N word, and I'm not sayin' the cultural small 'n' either. I even have a couple of hispanic friends, that have a sense of humor and refer to themselves as worse than anything I've seen on here....TJ would cringe in horror, and retreat into sucking his thumb in the corner in the fetal position.

Of course, the sensibilities of liberals don't allow them to distinguish between mean-spirited and hurtful insult, and clearly jocular humor. It's their loss.....whatever. :rolleyes:

memyselfI
10-20-2004, 07:17 AM
If you never "joke" with your friends in bigoted ways, you must be a radical liberal woman....which, of course you are.

Some of my liberal black male friends even call each other the N word, and I'm not sayin' the cultural small 'n' either. I even have a couple of hispanic friends, that have a sense of humor and refer to themselves as worse than anything I've seen on here....TJ would cringe in horror, and retreat into sucking his thumb in the corner in the fetal position.

Of course, the sensibilities of liberals don't allow them to distinguish between mean-spirited and hurtful insult, and clearly jocular humor. It's their loss.....whatever. :rolleyes:


So if I don't through around racist rhetoric that must mean I'm a radical liberal woman...which both are somehow wrong. :hmmm:

Cochise
10-20-2004, 07:21 AM
blah blah blah bigot racist blah rhetoric blah blah

So if I don't throw around racist rhetoric that must mean I'm a radical liberal woman...which both are somehow wrong. :hmmm:

So if not A, then B... but not A and not B... hmm. Well, that makes perfect sense.

And as for the not B part.... ROFL ROFL ROFL

Ugly Duck
10-20-2004, 07:25 AM
Consultant To Vatican Rules In Letter Consultants can "rule" things? Interesting... the text just reports that some guy wrote something, not that any possible excommunication was "ruled" by church moguls. Careful there, RingyDingy... folks might start to get the impression that you slant the truth to fit your own agenda, and you don't want something like that to sully your good name around here....

Mr. Kotter
10-20-2004, 07:29 AM
So if I don't through around racist rhetoric that must mean I'm a radical liberal woman...which both are somehow wrong. :hmmm:

It's called a joke. Even if you don't get it....

And if you are denying you are a radical liberal woman, all I can think is....you must be transgendered. Because you are certainly liberal, and quite radical by most accounts.

Clearly, you wear the "pants" in your family, so that wouldn't be a stretch.... :hmmm:

patteeu
10-20-2004, 07:53 AM
ha, I beat you to that one hours ago.

Convict a man who commits suicide - big deal.

Yep.

I just got back from a vacation and jumped right in without reading the whole thread.

patteeu
10-20-2004, 08:01 AM
The bold parts are where you lied. I don't know what gave you the idea that I changed my opinions about potential mother deaths. As you can recall I was very surprised when you mentioned "tying the tubes" if you know that there will be cmplications. I was not even aware that one has the ability to know whethere there will be complications BEFORE the pregnancy occurs, but again I'm no doctor. Please find a qoute, **cough**liar**cough**.

What I was trying to prove was that Kerry was right when he said that there have to be exceptions and there cannot be an absolute ban on abortions. Bush, however said it was a simple choice and there was no grey area. How does my 1% argument is without a brain cell of thought?

My personal conviction that abortions should be legal is secondary here, as it is nothing but an opinion.

Good game, liar.

Would you mind posting a link to Bush's "no-exceptions" position? This is the first I've heard of it.

memyselfI
10-20-2004, 08:05 AM
It's called a joke. Even if you don't get it....

And if you are denying you are a radical liberal woman, all I can think is....you must be transgendered. Because you are certainly liberal, and quite radical by most accounts.

Clearly, you wear the "pants" in your family, so that wouldn't be a stretch.... :hmmm:

LOL, no I am a liberal woman and on some issues quite radical. I'm not denying. What I pointed out is how you used that AND the refusal to use racist rhetoric as a 'joke' is a negative...like it's an honorable thing to use racist rhetoric as a 'joke.' :rolleyes:

What is amusing is that in your mind it's not possible for a liberal woman to find an even more liberal man and the man still be a man. I remember you struggled earlier with 'feminization' issues' and so it seems you also struggle with racist rhetoric 'joke' issues...

I understand a joke. I also understand no one but you thought your post was a joke. Hence your week vacation...

perhaps it is YOU who is in need of understanding.

Pants
10-20-2004, 02:54 PM
Would you mind posting a link to Bush's "no-exceptions" position? This is the first I've heard of it.

I was watching the 2nd debate, Kerry came in and said that the issue is not black and white and that there have to be exceptions and gave examples.

Bush replied saying that the issue was in fact a simple matter, you either are a. For abortions or b.against them. I suggest you go and watch the 2nd debate.

And Wolfman, why is it my fault that you ASSUMED I meant complications being evident before the pregnancy. It's funny how you didn't quote my next post where I was surprised at your ASSUMPTION which proves I never changed my opinion to fit any new facts.

Oh, and thanks for negative rep over a DC thread, I hope it helped your ego, lol.

Mr. Kotter
10-20-2004, 03:12 PM
.

I understand a joke. I also understand no one but you thought your post was a joke. Hence your week vacation...

perhaps it is YOU who is in need of understanding.

FWIW, there were others who understood it to be the joke it was. Yet others may not share my sense of humor, but unlike you they didn't feel compelled to "report" it.... :rolleyes:

Mr. Kotter
10-20-2004, 03:30 PM
remember you struggled earlier with 'feminization' issues' and so it seems you also struggle with racist rhetoric 'joke' issues...

FWIW, Duhnise.....just because someone doesn't share your twisted view of the world, that doesn't equate to a lack of understanding or "struggle."

While that may be difficult for you to fathom, you should ponder it for a bit.....it's yet ANOTHER example of your own intolerence. :)

memyselfI
10-20-2004, 03:38 PM
FWIW, there were others who understood it to be the joke it was. Yet others may not share my sense of humor, but unlike you they didn't feel compelled to "report" it.... :rolleyes:


I didn't report it. Some other person unappreciative of the greatness of racist rhetoric 'humor' must have. That is what made it all so incredibly satisfying... :thumb:

Mr. Kotter
10-20-2004, 04:01 PM
I didn't report it. Some other person unappreciative of the greatness of racist rhetoric 'humor' must have. That is what made it all so incredibly satisfying... :thumb:

Must be gratifying to know there are men in this world who can satisfy you. I'm glad to be of assistance.

Although, I do feel a bit "used" and "dirty." :p