SWhippman wrote: …However, sending off-topic posts to a ng you don’t even read, containing material that could be offensive and upsetting for the people posting there, is well out of order in the opinions of many of us here. It’s spamming, pure and simple.
===================================================================== Papa Jack stated: No it is not. If it is about abortion, it is on topic. The fact that someone may or may not be offended by a post is not grounds to censor that post. I am constantly offended by the blatant lies and propaganda of the PARs on talk.abortion. Women who are that troubled will not find answers on the newsgroups. =====================================================================
SWhippman wrote: The whole topic came to the fore last year when someone from a.s.a who’d actually gone there for the ng’s intended purpose – to talk to someone after her abortion – complained bitterly after PJ had sent a post about a case of infanticide, titled `Another extremely late term abortion’.
===================================================================== Papa Jack stated: Actually the title was: "Re: ANOTHER MURDERED BABY ______________________________________________________ Author: Robin Hemenway <ez056…@mailbox.ucdavis.edu
Date: 1998/06/09 Forum: talk.abortion Yes, I have a comment. I subscribed to this newsgroup to receive SUPPORT, to talk about abortion experiences and discuss my feelings, NOT to have you anti-choice assholes ranting and raving about your opinions about MY body and MY choices. Stop it! ______________________________________________________ Notice that this message was posted FROM talk.abortion. Ms. Hemenway did NOT post it from a.s.a. — nor, did she include a.s.a. in the addressing. Thus, the assumption that she was complaining about crossposting to a.s.a. is questionable at best. An analysis of her other posts indicated to me that she was either a flake or a troll. Perhaps both. =====================================================================
SWhippman wrote: …There was a huge amount of heated discussion about the rights and wrongs of cross-posting, and it came to people’s attention that PJ had routinely been putting a.s.a. into the cross-posts for all his posts and that everyone else had been forgetting to snip it in their posts back to the subsequent threads.
===================================================================== Papa Jack stated: See, again the PARs simply refuse to accept any responsibility for their own actions. I’ve repeatedly posted lists of those who posted messages to a.s.a. on a given day. These lists clearly show that a large majority of the crossposts are posted by PAR regulars from talk.abortion. However, Sarah would have the reader blame bad ol’ Papa Jack because the PARs don’t have the sense to properly address their messages. I wonder what they will be when they grow up? =====================================================================
SWhippman wrote: …As a result of the subject coming up like that, several people realised this was out of order and began cutting a.s.a. out of the headers whenever they answered the threads it was in. PJ did this briefly as well, but then decided to start putting it back in again,…
=================================================================== Papa Jack stated: Ahhhh, but you forgot to tell what happened during the two or three weeks when I … read more »
Response:
Papa Jackass <papa_j…@geocities.com
wrote: Jim Rogers wrote: How would you know? You’ve admitted you never read that group. Why would you want to sabotage such a group if it did or does in fact exist? Oh, but once in awhile I do go there to confirm my suspicions that the regular PARS are the worst offenders of crossposting meaningless crap to a.s.a..
Note that it is Jackass who insists on ALWAYS crossposting to a.s.a. If people delete that newgroup from the list, Jackass puts it back. If people remove it from the followups, Jackass puts it back. When Jackass starts a new thread, he always includes a.s.a. Jackass is an asshole who really doesn’t give a shit about other people. — Ray Fischer For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, r…@netcom.com and lose his own soul?
Response:
Papa Jack remarked: On 01/16/98, the results of a New York Times/CBS News nationwide poll were published. That poll included: 3. Is abortion the same thing as murdering a child, or is abortion not murder because the fetus really isn’t a child? 50% – murder 38% – not murder 12% – unsure/no reply
Funny how an official poll I quoted here found that around 38% of Americans thought abortion should have no restrictions on it where as only 9% thought it should be illegal in all cases — the rest were fairly well distributed in between the two categories, with slighly more on the Pro-Choice side.
Response:
Jim Rogers wrote:
Papa Jack wrote: Thomas Dehn wrote: …
=====================================================================
Thomas Dehn wrote: When people take out a.s.a on their follow-up to your article, you add it again. When people keep the x-post, but set a follow-up, you ignore the follow-up. When you begin a thread on your own, it is x-posted to a.s.a, whether it is on.topic there or not.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack replied: Yep, you’re correct on all counts. …
=====================================================================
Jim Rogers wrote: Which explains, I suppose, why you always post there, since all of your posts belong in a garbage dump every bit as much as they belong here.
===================================================================== – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Papa Jack remarked: Yep, you’re correct on all counts. I do this mostly to prove to our readers what hypocrites you PARs really are. It is okay for Ray to cross-post to a.s.a. five times in one day — but, it is terrible for "bad ol’ Papa Jack" to crosspost once a day. Ray will even blame me for the posting of "Jackass the asshole." Have you ever heard of the term "double standard?" And, don’t give me that BS that it’s somehow my fault that Ray crossposted the five articles to a.s.a.. He is a big boy and he must start to learn to accept responsibility for his own actions. A.S.A. is a dumping ground. There is NO SUPPORT GROUP which posts there — that is a pure fiction made up by PARs. BTW, the same was true BEFORE I started posting on talk.abortion — back three years ago. Keep it up though. I enjoy you giving me such a simple oppor- tunity to show your double standard.
=====================================================================
Jim Rogers wrote: How would you know? You’ve admitted you never read that group. Why would you want to sabotage such a group if it did or does in fact exist?
===================================================================== Papa Jack remarked: Oh, but once in awhile I do go there to confirm my suspicions that the regular PARS are the worst offenders of crossposting meaningless crap to a.s.a.. THERE IS NO SUPPORT GROUP ON A.S.A.. Why do you keep telling lies to pretend there is a valid working group of women who are being irritated. There is no such group. You are simply telling lies. — { 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:
You can’t take bits and pieces of sentences and make your own. If you are going to argue on a biblical level then you must accept the whole bible, not select phrases. "I warn everyone who hears the words of prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." Revelation 22:18-19
Yes, and the truth is that God uses the Judeo-Christian holy Bible to throughout support, sanction, tolerate, and even promote the practice of abortion. Several sample Biblical arguments in support of abortion might include the following typical facts: First, the Bible proclaims that stillbirth is preferable to an unproductive life as in the typical "If a…soul be not filled with good…an untimely birth is better than he…"(Eccl 6:3-4)
It does not say that it is preferable. It says that a stillborn is better off than he. It is a comparison and in no way promotes abortion.
"…let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun."(Psalms 58:8)
This verse is referring to rulers that judge unjustly. It says may they be like a stillborn child, may thay not see the sun. So David is saying that they will be punished by God. Again absolutely nothing that even remotely implies that abortion is condoned by God.
the despondent prophet regrets that "…the Lord slew me not from the womb; or that my mother might have been my grave, and her womb to always be great with me."(Jeremiah 20:17).
If you read the whole chapter you see that Jeremiah is complaining to God because his life is miserable, everyone mocks him. Jeremiah wishes that he was never born. But God obviously did not let him die in the womb He let him live.
Second, the fact that a fetus is valued only as property and not as a person is illustrated in Exodus 21:22: "If men strive and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow; he shall be surely punished…and he shall pay as the judges determine." Here the loss of the fetus is represented as a simple property loss resulting in a civil fine for the loss. (NOTE: The next verse mentioning "…life for life…" only applies to any further mischief that then follows, and not to the loss of the woman’s "fruit".)
You really blew it on this one. It says that if men are fighting and accidentally hit a pregnant woman causing her to give birth prematurely, but NO serious injury is caused then he will pay restitution. If serious injury IS caused then you are to take life for life. This clearly shows that God imposes severe penalty for anyone that harms an unborn child. I challenge everyone to read the verses for themselves. The truth will always come out.
Third, the Bible contains the ‘trial by ordeal’ procedure for determining whether a pregnant wife had been unfaithful. In substance, the story has the suspicious husband delivering the poor woman before the priests to engage in a test of her faith- fulness. The priest mixes a potion, applies a curse, and requires the woman drink the concoction. If guilty, her "…belly shall swell and her thigh shall fall out…". If innocent, she shall be free and "…bear seed…"(Numbers 5:11-31). In effect, her fetus will abort if she had been unfaithful. The resultant abortion is neither offensive nor punishable. Instead it is a divinely authorized process to abort the fetus that resulted from the suspected adultery. Absolutely no sanctity is placed upon nor granted the fetus.
This story makes no mention of pregnant women. If a man is suspicious of his wife then he will take her to the priest and make the concoction like you stated. If she is guilty she will be barren for the rest of her life whether she sleeps with her husband or any other man. If she is not guilty she will bear children. A man can take his wife to the priest whenever he wants if he suspects her of being unfaithful, not because she is pregnant. It does not mention a child that resulted from adultery.
Fourth, the fact that God supposedly created mankind in His own image (Genesis 2:7), and then is instrumental in permitting almost one-third of all conceived human fetus’ to be spontane- ously aborted during the 1st. tri-mester (ref. "Williams Obstetrics"); offers a measure of the importance that He places on fetuses before they take their first "breath-of-life".
All of mankind is equally important. Many people die when they are eighty years old, does that mean that we have the right to kill people that are eighty. Are we to assume that God places less importance on people that are eighty than those that are eighty-two? Everyone dies sometime and at all different times. Just because some people die before birth does not mean that God condones abortion.
Fifth, the Bible clearly instructs it’s brotherhood to ONLY count children over one month old as part of the "faith community" (Numbers 3:15-50, 26:62, Leviticus 27:1-6). NEITHER fetuses NOR new-borns are considered viable human beings.
In Numbers God asked Moses to count only MALES one month older or more. He counted the males because God was going to give each tribe certain responsibilities. He told each tribe where to camp and what part they had in taking care of and moving the tabernacle. Again I challenge everyone to read the verses. There is no mention of fetuses or newborns being different than anyone else. The verses have absolutely nothing to do with abortion by any stretch of the imagination. Leviticus says that if anyone wants to dedicate people to the Lord they must offer a certain amount of money as a sacrifice. How you translate that to mean that fetuses are not human beings is beyond my comprehension.
Sixth, the Bible continually authorizes, tolerates, justifies, and encourages the killing of un-born and newly-born children as in "King Menehem…smote Tiphsah, and all that were within, and the coasts thereof…and did dash their children, and rip up their women with child.(2 kings 8:12).
The entire book of Kings is about the Kings of Israel many of whom were wicked. The passage that you refer to states that Elisha is weeping because he knows that Hazael will become king and kill many people including children and pregnant women. (the Bible is a book and cannot authorize anything) if you are referring to God authorizing or tolerating it then you are wrong again. The bible does not even go on to say that those things actually happened. In chapter 17 God does punish the kings and Israelites for their sins.
And revenge against Israel’s enemies includes: "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."(Psalms 137:9, Nahum 3:10, Ezekiel 9:5-6) and "…have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children."(Isaiah 13:16-18) and "…their infants shall be dashed in pieces…"(Hosea 13:16, Deuteronomy 7:2, 20:16-17), and etc., etc., etc.
These passages show how God punished many people that turned away from Him. Many times the punishment was to destroy the entire tribe, which included their children. God gives life and can take it away. In no way do these passages imply that God approves of abortion. He also treated the unborn children the same as the born, and the same as the adults. If they were not living people he would not even mention them, but he groups them all together they are all the same, they are all treated equally. You are presenting points that contrdict your argument.
Seventh, under duress, people will "…eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and daughters…her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: she shall eat them…"(Deut. 28:53-57) and "…the women eat their fruit, and children… (become)…their meat."(Lamentations 2:20 and 4:10). The Hebrew words ‘periy’ and ’shilyah’ translated "fruit" and "young one" actually mean "fetus" and "after-birth". No, there is no sacredness involved in eating one’s own offspring, as condoned and permitted (And never banned…!) by the ‘holy’ Bible.
These things happened as a result of their persecution by their enemies. God is telling them what their enemies will do to them. Where in those verses does God say, "I want you to eat your offspring."? God does not condone it you are misinterpretting.
Eighth, the Biblical God was ALWAYS willing and eager to punish people by token of aborting their fetus’. Typical examples are found in "Their fruit shalt thou destroy from the earth…"(Psalms 21:10); and "…for the children are come to the birth, and there is not strength to bring forth."(Isaiah 37:3); and "As for Israel…Give them, O Lord…Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts…they shall bear no fruit…" (Hosiah 9:11-16); and "The Lord hast fast closed up all the wombs of the house of Abimelech…(Genesis 20:18); and etc., etc., etc.
Why do you leave so much out? Either quote the whole verse or simply give it’s location so that we can read it on our own. No one can make any sense of the fragmented sentences that you try to twist into your own meanings. I hope everyone reads these passages, – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Ninth, the Bible deals with the traffic and cultic use of ancient abortifacients like rue, hyssop, myrrh, wormwood, and gall (‘hemlock’). All these can cause violent convulsions and induce menstration in women. And in the case of Biblical willow, date palm and pomegranate; these stimulate the production of female sex hormones and thereby reduce fertility. This is exactly how modern birth control pills work. Tenth, the Bible conveys a subtle message of hatred towards human life. Typically we read Christ’s "If any man come to me, and HATE not his
… read more »
Response:
Papa Jack <papa_j…@geocities.com
wrote: Ray Fischer wrote: Because YOU are the asshole who keeps putting alt.support.abortion BACK into the list of newsgroups even after I and others keep taking it out. That’s why, Jackass. You didn’t take it out of the FIVE messages listed above — and that was just for one day.
And AGAIN, I set the followups and you add back alt.support.abortion. Jackass, you’re an asshole. YOU are the one spamming alt.support.abortion because you’re too much of an asshole to give a shit about anyone else.
Are you saying it’s my fault that YOU included a.s.a. in YOUR
YES IT IS YOUR FAULT, ASSHOLE! — Ray Fischer For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, r…@netcom.com and lose his own soul?
Response:
On Fri, 12 Mar 1999 06:17:56 GMT, minxs@so_amspayonay_nic.net (M is for Malapert) wrote:
And yet, nearly half the women in America will have at least one abortion in their lifetimes.
And why not? After all, God uses the Judeo-Christian holy Bible to throughout support, sanction, tolerate, and even promote the practice of abortion. Several sample Biblical arguments in support of abortion might include the following typical facts: First, the Bible proclaims that stillbirth is preferable to an unproductive life as in the typical "If a…soul be not filled with good…an untimely birth is better than he…"(Eccl 6:3-4) and "…let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun."(Psalms 58:8). And the despondent prophet regrets that "…the Lord slew me not from the womb; or that my mother might have been my grave, and her womb to always be great with me."(Jeremiah 20:17). Second, the fact that a fetus is valued only as property and not as a person is illustrated in Exodus 21:22: "If men strive and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow; he shall be surely punished…and he shall pay as the judges determine." Here the loss of the fetus is represented as a simple property loss resulting in a civil fine for the loss. (NOTE: The next verse mentioning "…life for life…" only applies to any further mischief that then follows, and not to the loss of the woman’s "fruit".) Third, the Bible contains the ‘trial by ordeal’ procedure for determining whether a pregnant wife had been unfaithful. In substance, the story has the suspicious husband delivering the poor woman before the priests to engage in a test of her faith- fulness. The priest mixes a potion, applies a curse, and requires the woman drink the concoction. If guilty, her "…belly shall swell and her thigh shall fall out…". If innocent, she shall be free and "…bear seed…"(Numbers 5:11-31). In effect, her fetus will abort if she had been unfaithful. The resultant abortion is neither offensive nor punishable. Instead it is a divinely authorized process to abort the fetus that resulted from the suspected adultery. Absolutely no sanctity is placed upon nor granted the fetus. Fourth, the fact that God supposedly created mankind in His own image (Genesis 2:7), and then is instrumental in permitting almost one-third of all conceived human fetus’ to be spontane- ously aborted during the 1st. tri-mester (ref. "Williams Obstetrics"); offers a measure of the importance that He places on fetuses before they take their first "breath-of-life". Fifth, the Bible clearly instructs it’s brotherhood to ONLY count children over one month old as part of the "faith community" (Numbers 3:15-50, 26:62, Leviticus 27:1-6). NEITHER fetuses NOR new-borns are considered viable human beings. Sixth, the Bible continually authorizes, tolerates, justifies, and encourages the killing of un-born and newly-born children as in "King Menehem…smote Tiphsah, and all that were within, and the coasts thereof…and did dash their children, and rip up their women with child.(2 kings 8:12). And revenge against Israel’s enemies includes: "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."(Psalms 137:9, Nahum 3:10, Ezekiel 9:5-6) and "…have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children."(Isaiah 13:16-18) and "…their infants shall be dashed in pieces…"(Hosea 13:16, Deuteronomy 7:2, 20:16-17), and etc., etc., etc. Seventh, under duress, people will "…eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and daughters…her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: she shall eat them…"(Deut. 28:53-57) and "…the women eat their fruit, and children… (become)…their meat."(Lamentations 2:20 and 4:10). The Hebrew words ‘periy’ and ’shilyah’ translated "fruit" and "young one" actually mean "fetus" and "after-birth". No, there is no sacredness involved in eating one’s own offspring, as condoned and permitted (And never banned…!) by the ‘holy’ Bible. Eighth, the Biblical God was ALWAYS willing and eager to punish people by token of aborting their fetus’. Typical examples are found in "Their fruit shalt thou destroy from the earth…"(Psalms 21:10); and "…for the children are come to the birth, and there is not strength to bring forth."(Isaiah 37:3); and "As for Israel…Give them, O Lord…Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts…they shall bear no fruit…" (Hosiah 9:11-16); and "The Lord hast fast closed up all the wombs of the house of Abimelech…(Genesis 20:18); and etc., etc., etc. Ninth, the Bible deals with the traffic and cultic use of ancient abortifacients like rue, hyssop, myrrh, wormwood, and gall (‘hemlock’). All these can cause violent convulsions and induce menstration in women. And in the case of Biblical willow, date palm and pomegranate; these stimulate the production of female sex hormones and thereby reduce fertility. This is exactly how modern birth control pills work. Tenth, the Bible conveys a subtle message of hatred towards human life. Typically we read Christ’s "If any man come to me, and HATE not his father, mother, wife, brethren, and children, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.(Luke 14:26) and "…he that HATETH his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.(John 12:25) and etc., etc., etc. The Greek word miseo translated "hate" only means "detest". "despise", "abhor", etc. Eleventh, in the interest of un-raveling what the holy Bible SAYS regarding abortion, consider the matter of "soul". The Hebrew ‘ nephresh’ and the Greek ‘psyche’, mis-translated hundreds of times throughout the King James Bible as "soul", correctly translate to "breath-of-life", "living creature", and simply "breath". It is equally applicable to humans AND animals (See Numbers 31:28 and Eccl 3:19 for typical examples). Nowhere in the Bible can be found even a hint of the existance of a X’ian "soul" (ie, a separate entity that inhabits physical bodies and lives on after the body dies…..!) apart from the living creature itself. Nor is the ‘nephresh’ or ‘psyche’ anywhere therein claimed to be eternal or immortal. [So as not to allow Bible believers to get too confused on this point, just recall that the Bible claims we will ALL be bodily resurrected and THEN 'changed' as we flitter down to either God's heaven or Jesus' 'Hell'. There's no place for a 'soul' in that formulation!] The conclusion is therefore inescapeable that a fetus is NOT a human being until it takes it’s first "breath-of-life". Twelveth, etc., etc., But you get the idea. One could uncover pages and pages and pages of actual Biblical arguments in support of and sanction for abortion. And so, a formidable argument exists for the legalization of abortion that would be fully in accordance with Biblical precepts on the issue. The Bible throughout promotes, encourages, tolerates, permits, and sanctions abortion. Nowhere is it prohibited or banned in that holy book. The feeble and un-Biblical argument that "Thou shalt not kill", clearly doesn’t apply to un-born children. The Bible is quite clear that the fetus is NOT a human person, is neither sacred nor sanctified, and can be aborted at will as demonstrated therein.
Response:
MINXS:
As for PAS, that was never a threat since it was simply a made-up
"disease." <snipped, as usual, PJ’s unsubstantiated ravings of a madman
The only reason why the DSM-IV is piled with so many mental disorders, the majority of which have never been empirically unsubstantiated, is that mental health pros cannot receive insurance payments if they do not diagnose. No diagnosis, no insurance payments–and that includes Medicaid payments too. That’s why we have disorders such as "chocolate addiction disorder," "sugar addition disorder," and "television addiction disorder." It’s utterly ridiculous to look at the levels of absurdity that the DSM-IV committees, which consist mostly of clinicians and not researchers, have gone through in order to be taken seriously. The truth is, that there are only about five bona fide, empirically substantiated mental disorders, NOT several hundred; these are the brain-based disorders such as clinical depression, OCD, schizophrenia, and the bipolar disorders (I and II). Everything else, including *Dissociative Disorder* (the new name for Multiple Personality Disorder), is the result of clinical guesswork at best, and outright nonsense at worst. And PAS is built upon the desire of a few to use the diagnosis as a tool to increase lawsuits against abortion providers. Incidentally, PAS has not been approved by the DSM-IV committee nor the American Psychiatric Association. And yet, the pro-lie web sites insist on pretending that it has been approved by these authoritative bodies.
Response:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Papa Jack <papa_j…@geocities.com wrote: Tom Scalf wrote:
=====================================================================
Tom Scalf wrote: alt.support.abortion removed from headers AGAIN. Come on Papa Jack!! Those people aren’t interested in this topic. Why do you insist on spamming them with your every post??
=====================================================================
Papa Jack asked: Why do you pick on me, Tom? Here is a list of folks who cross posted to a.s.a yesterday. Have you openly criticized:
Fury Ray Fischer hrgruemm Salomeh Pat Winstanley Date Subject Forum Author ________ _____________________ _____________ ____________ [snip] 99/03/11 Re: Abortion Morals talk.abortion Ray Fischer 99/03/11 Re: Abortion Morals talk.abortion Ray Fischer 99/03/11 Re: Pro-Life Proclamati talk.abortion Ray Fischer 99/03/11 Jackass the asshole talk.abortion Ray Fischer 99/03/11 Re: Pro-life Proclamat talk.abortion Ray Fischer [snip] =====================================================================
Ray Fischer wrote: Because YOU are the asshole who keeps putting alt.support.abortion BACK into the list of newsgroups even after I and others keep taking it out. That’s why, Jackass.
===================================================================== Papa Jack remarked: You didn’t take it out of the FIVE messages listed above — and that was just for one day. Are you saying it’s my fault that YOU included a.s.a. in YOUR message titled: "Jackass the asshole?" That’s a major streach even for you, Ray. Do you ever stand responsible for your own actions? Or, do you always whine like a little boy? Go back and look at the list, Idiot. There is no such newsgroup as you and other PARs try to visualize. It is made up of more than 90% of crossposts from other newsgroups. Why do you tell such blatant lies over and over? Do you really believe our readers are THAT stupid? — { 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:
Tom Scalf wrote:
alt.support.abortion removed from headers AGAIN. Come on Papa Jack!! Those people aren’t interested in this topic. Why do you insist on spamming them with your every post??
===================================================================== Papa Jack remarked: Why do you pick on me, Tom? Here is a list of folks who cross posted to a.s.a yesterday. Have you openly criticized: Fury Ray Fischer hrgruemm Salomeh Pat Winstanley Date Subject Forum Author ________ _____________________ _____________ ____________ 99/03/11 Re: Abortion Morals talk.abortion Fury 99/03/11 Re: Abortion Morals talk.abortion Fury 99/03/11 Re: Abortion Morals talk.abortion Ray Fischer 99/03/11 Re: Abortion Morals talk.abortion Ray Fischer 99/03/11 Re: Pro-Life Proclamati talk.abortion Ray Fischer 99/03/11 Jackass the asshole talk.abortion Ray Fischer 99/03/11 Re: Pro-life Proclamat talk.abortion Ray Fischer 99/03/11 Re: Abortion Morals talk.abortion hrgruemm 99/03/11 Re: Pro-life Proclamat. talk.abortion hrgruemm 99/03/11 Re: Mark Crutcher’s lit. talk.abortion Papa Jack 99/03/11 Re: Mark Crutcher’s lit. talk.abortion Papa Jack 99/03/11 Re: Pro-Life Proclamati talk.abortion Papa Jack 99/03/11 Re: Pro-Life Proclamati talk.abortion Papa Jack 99/03/11 Re: Abortion Standards talk.abortion Salomeh 99/03/11 Re: 20/20 report alt.sup.abort. grist_4_the_mil 99/03/11 Re: Abortion Morals talk.abortion The Ghost In Th 99/03/11 Re: Abortion Standards talk.abortion Ron Nicholson 99/03/11 Re: Abortion Morals talk.abortion JC 99/03/11 Re: Abortion Standards talk.abortion Andrea Schwartz 99/03/11 Abortion and GOD alt.sup.abort. Snakeboy 99/03/11 Re: Abortion Morals talk.abortion Pat Winstanley 99/03/11 Re: Abortion Morals talk.abortion Hal — { 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: Tom Scalf wrote: alt.support.abortion removed from headers AGAIN. Come on Papa Jack!! Those people aren’t interested in this topic. Why do you insist on spamming them with your every post?? Why do you pick on me, Tom?
Because YOU are the asshole who keeps putting alt.support.abortion BACK into the list of newsgroups even after I and others keep taking it out. That’s why, Jackass. — Ray Fischer For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, r…@netcom.com and lose his own soul?
Response:
Papa Jack <papa_j…@geocities.com
wrote: Get the book, _Lime 5_ by Mark Chrichton. That will clearly prove why I say the things I do about CDC. He names names, dates, and places to show that abortion industry executives controlled that section of the CDC for years.
No he doesn’t. But others have pointed this out to you.
I have little faith in the radical libs normally found in the so-called Women’s Departments in most universities. They tend to be knee-jerk liberals on all points, and I wouldn’t trust any research they did if they had 10 PhDs behind their names. Go look at Russo’s activities in recent years and imagine how you would feel if she was Pro-Life. I think you would agree with me.
Does writing this statement give you a clue as to why people don’t trust Mark Crutcher, who says that "induced abortions should be illegal under all circumstances and at every stage of pregnancy" and who has made a very sleazy and murky career out of working against abortion? Or why people don’t trust Joel Brind, whose field of expertise is sex hormones and whose hobby is opposing abortion?
No, I am NOT anti-women. I think women are really neat — and I believe most of them are far too wise to be taken in by your radical philosophies.
And yet, nearly half the women in America will have at least one abortion in their lifetimes.
I’ve never said Reardon and Brind are totally correct in all they do. I have said that there is sufficient evidence to believe that PAS and breast cancer deserve more objective studies.
And more objective studies have been done.
I believe it is dishonest to tell the women in crisis that we know for sure that these threats have been totally proven false.
We certainly know now that there is no connection between early abortion (before 18 weeks) and breast cancer. Now we’re trying to determine if very early abortion (before 7 weeks) has a protective effect against breast cancer, as 3 studies now have indicated. As for PAS, that was never a threat since it was simply a made-up "disease."
Why are PARs so very anxious to even admit there may be some minor correlation with anything negative and abortion?
There’s a minor correlation between abortion and placenta previa in subsequent pregnancies. Is that something negative?
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Papa Jack wrote in message <36E87CF3.1A18F…@geocities.com
… Papa Jack remarked: Why do you pick on me, Tom? Here is a list of folks who cross posted to a.s.a yesterday. Have you openly criticized: Fury Ray Fischer hrgruemm Salomeh Pat Winstanley Date Subject Forum Author ________ _____________________ _____________ ____________ 99/03/11 Re: Abortion Morals talk.abortion Fury 99/03/11 Re: Abortion Morals talk.abortion Fury 99/03/11 Re: Abortion Morals talk.abortion Ray Fischer 99/03/11 Re: Abortion Morals talk.abortion Ray Fischer 99/03/11 Re: Pro-Life Proclamati talk.abortion Ray Fischer 99/03/11 Jackass the asshole talk.abortion Ray Fischer 99/03/11 Re: Pro-life Proclamat talk.abortion Ray Fischer 99/03/11 Re: Abortion Morals talk.abortion hrgruemm 99/03/11 Re: Pro-life Proclamat. talk.abortion hrgruemm
These are all replies to your posts, PJ.
99/03/11 Re: Mark Crutcher’s lit. talk.abortion Papa Jack 99/03/11 Re: Mark Crutcher’s lit. talk.abortion Papa Jack 99/03/11 Re: Pro-Life Proclamati talk.abortion Papa Jack 99/03/11 Re: Pro-Life Proclamati talk.abortion Papa Jack
And these are yours.
99/03/11 Re: Abortion Standards talk.abortion Salomeh 99/03/11 Re: 20/20 report alt.sup.abort. grist_4_the_mil 99/03/11 Re: Abortion Morals talk.abortion The Ghost In Th 99/03/11 Re: Abortion Standards talk.abortion Ron Nicholson 99/03/11 Re: Abortion Morals talk.abortion JC 99/03/11 Re: Abortion Standards talk.abortion Andrea Schwartz
Replies. And some anti-choicers thrown in for good measure.
99/03/11 Abortion and GOD alt.sup.abort. Snakeboy
I don’t know about this one.
99/03/11 Re: Abortion Morals talk.abortion Pat Winstanley 99/03/11 Re: Abortion Morals talk.abortion Hal
And replies. Care to see if ONE pro-choicer INITIATED a thread to a.s.a. ?
Response:
Papa Jack remarked: Tom, the book _Lime 5_ includes extensive documentation at the end. I’m not going to do your homework for you. Why don’t you actually get the book at your local library and read it. At least read Chapter 4, devoted to exposing CDC errors before you keep telling all about your opinions on something you’ve not read? Otherwise you are like the fellow who says, "Don’t confuse me with the facts." ********************************************************************* – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Tom Scalf wrote:
a.s.a again trimmed from the headers. Papa Jack just can’t seem to quit harassing that group with his irrelevant posts On Mon, 08 Mar 1999 17:23:22 -0600, Papa Jack <papa_j…@geocities.com wrote: <big snip Have you read _Lime 5_? Here is just a taste of some of the material in Chapter 4 which is about the CDC. Now please ask yourself if the FACTUAL DATA is correct. For example, did two abortionists named Cates and Grimes hold the position of head of the Abortion Surveillance Branch? Papa Jack, you paraded out this nonsense the last time you shilled for Crutcher, then headed for the hills when we asked for details and verification of Markie’s flat assertions. Let’s see if you can do any better this time. The question is whether that standard has been met by the CDC. Starting at the top, since at least 1975, Dr. Willard Cates and Dr. David Grimes have both held various positions at the CDC and both have served terms as head of the Abortion Sur- veillance Branch. Each is also a practicing abortionist…. PROOF please. Where are their clinics? How long have they been abortion providers? …A woman there told us that abortion mortality is handled by Dr. Clarice Green in the Pregnancy and Infant Health Branch. As it turns out, Green is not a permanent employee of the CDC, but is instead a two-year research fellow…. So the woman lied. What else did she say? …However, she did tell us that all death certificates must first go through a department run by a woman named Lisa Koonin. So? Every department had a "head" and _EVERY_ organization which handles large volumes of data have screening and verification sections/departments to perform the initial QA on incoming data before it is entered into the databases and passed to the analysts. Some organizations have two, three, or more layers of review before the data is certified for use. In fact, Green told us that even if she learns of a possible abortion death from an outside source, she cannot investigate it until Koonin’s office confirms the death as being abortion- related. If her office does not confirm it, the investigation ends there. So, if your neighbor’s wife’s sister tells you that her mother’s sister’s grandniece died from an abortion, you want the CDC to run off and spend your tax dollars on a full-blown investigation when a simple review of the death certificate database would show that she actually died from the complications from an ingrown toenail. There are many many more facts in the book. Instead of attacking PLs for raising these issues, why don’t you do your homework, Al? Hummmm. You must have been tired. You didn’t post as many accusations as you did last time, but you didn’t post anything new either. So tell us, Where are the cites to verify any of Crutcher’s accusations? BTW, is Chap 4 the only chapter in that book? It’s the only one you ever quote from.
===================================================================== Papa Jack remarks: Nope, it’s the only chapter devoted to exposing the CDC for the phony statistics they distribute. — { 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: Al Borges wrote: Papa Jack wrote: Get the book, _Lime 5_ by Mark Chrichton. That will clearly prove why I say the things I do about CDC. He names names, dates, and places to show that abortion industry executives controlled that section of the CDC for years. The CDC is not just about abortion, Papa Jack. I understand that. That is why I specified the section of CDC which deals with abortions and abortion stats(Abortion Surveillance Branch). According to Mark Chrichton,
Why should anyone give a fetid rat’s ass what Chrichton says? [...]
The PLie industry attacks on this peer-reveiwed, respected organization is a sham. They spread the truth- learn to live with it. Your use of the PLie term greatly damages your credibility, Al.
No it doesn’t. You make claims about the CDC which you have been challenged on and refuse to substantiate. That makes you a liar.
Have you read _Lime 5_? Here is just a taste of some of the material in Chapter 4 which is about the CDC. Now please ask yourself if the FACTUAL DATA is correct. For example, did two abortionists named Cates and Grimes hold the position of head of the Abortion Surveillance Branch? The question is whether that standard has been met by the CDC. Starting at the top, since at least 1975, Dr. Willard Cates and Dr. David Grimes have both held various positions at the CDC and both have served terms as head of the Abortion Sur- veillance Branch. Each is also a practicing abortionist….
This is a guilt-by-association fallacy. GUILT BY ASSOCIATION IS NOTHING BUT PROPAGANDA. AS SUCH, EDUCATED FOLKS NORMALLY TREAT IT WITH DISDAIN. Papa Jackass in <323CC16E….@express-news.net
— Ray Fischer For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, r…@netcom.com and lose his own soul?
Response:
Papa Jack remarked: I’ve told you before, I am not interested in this sort of one-on-one research challenge. It is very time consuming and would be boring to the other readers. My point is that there are very few sources which both sides can trust to be truly impartial on issues related to abortion. That is at least part of why true experts avoid abortion rela- ted research. Get the book, _Lime 5_ by Mark Chrichton. That will clearly prove why I say the things I do about CDC. He names names, dates, and places to show that abortion industry executives controlled that section of the CDC for years. I have little faith in the radical libs normally found in the so-called Women’s Departments in most universities. They tend to be knee-jerk liberals on all points, and I wouldn’t trust any research they did if they had 10 PhDs behind their names. Go look at Russo’s activities in recent years and imagine how you would feel if she was Pro-Life. I think you would agree with me. No, I am NOT anti-women. I think women are really neat — and I believe most of them are far too wise to be taken in by your radical philosophies. I’ve never said Reardon and Brind are totally correct in all they do. I have said that there is sufficient evidence to believe that PAS and breast cancer deserve more objective studies. I believe it is dishonest to tell the women in crisis that we know for sure that these threats have been totally proven false. Why are PARs so very anxious to even admit there may be some minor correlation with anything negative and abortion? Methinks thou protest too much. ********************************************************************* – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Maritza Combes wrote:
So, PJ, Melbye at al., Russo, Major, Cozzarelli, and the others are puppets of the AGI and/or CDC? Do us a favor–provide evidence that they are. IF you don’t prove that they are, then let’s pretend that they indeed ARE, as Reardon and Brind are admittedly anti-abortion. Then, let’s break down the research METHODS piece by piece to see which studies are methodologically sound, regardless of who had done it. Remember that we did not stop with Reardon’s admittedly pro-life connections–we went ahead and dissected his research methods bit by bit so that you could see–along with your fellow anti-abortionists–the flaws in his research design. We also did this so you would not accuse us of dismissing his research SOLELY because he is anti-abortion by his own admission. Will you accept the challenge this time?
— { 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: I’ve told you before, I am not interested in this sort of one-on-one research challenge. It is very time consuming and would be boring to the other readers.
And because what you post is sleazy propaganda riddled with biases, dishonest research methods, and outright lies.
My point is that there are very few sources which both sides can trust to be truly impartial on issues related to abortion.
Bullshit. You reject everything that challenges your prejudices regardless of whether you are justified in so doing.
Get the book, _Lime 5_ by Mark Chrichton.
What make his any sort of an authority? [...]
No, I am NOT anti-women.
Yes you are.
I think women are really neat —
Only the ones who do as you command.
I’ve never said Reardon and Brind are totally correct in all they do.
They’re not even a little bit correct.
I have said that there is sufficient evidence to believe that PAS and breast cancer deserve more objective studies.
There have been objective studies. The best of them show you to be wrong. The transparently biased and corrupt support your prejudices.
I believe it is dishonest to tell the women in crisis that we know for sure that these threats have been totally proven false.
We know for sure that childbirth is much more dangerous than abortion. — Ray Fischer For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, r…@netcom.com and lose his own soul?
Response:
<<Get the book, _Lime 5_ by Mark Chrichton. That will clearly prove why I say the things I do about CDC. He names names, dates, and places to show that abortion industry executives controlled that section of the CDC for years.
The CDC is not just about abortion, Papa Jack. I use it to get my continuing medical education (CME’s- used by doctors throughout the world to expand their medical knowledge). The CDC is government sponsored, and although nothing is perfectly central in all issues, it tries to be so. The PLie industry attacks on this peer-reveiwed, respected organization is a sham. They spread the truth- learn to live with it. <<I’ve told you before, I am not interested in this sort of one-on-one research challenge. It is very time consuming and would be boring to the other readers.
It is time consuming, but when one hurts inside reading all the garbage posted in these newsgroups, some *real information* needs to be injected. The truth is NOT boring, PJ. Today, for instance, one topic had over 30 responses- THAT is boring, and reading each individual reply, most of which say nothing new of interest, is a waste of time. YOU don’t like research because it is difficult to find information to back up the PL viewpoint. Period. <<No, I am NOT anti-women. I think women are really neat — and I believe most of them are far too wise to be taken in by your radical philosophies.
We’ll take you at your word that you wish to not be anti-women- but why do you support the PL viewpoint? It’s inherently anti-women. You are like the homosexuals that I see at my clinic who "wish" not to be gay, but still follow the lifestyle. Either you are PL or you are Pro-women -
you can’t be
both. <<I’ve never said Reardon and Brind are totally correct in all they do. I have said that there is sufficient evidence to believe that PAS and breast cancer deserve more objective studies.
As an oncologist (a "cancer" doctor), I can tell you that no credible physician would even consider the fable of breast cancer being caused by abortion. Nuns have the same incidence of breast cancer that women status post abortion have- why? Because these 2 groups either have no children or late pregnancies and rarely, if ever, breast feed. I have before me the 1999 NIH (National Institutes of Health) diskette that has been given out to all physicians to help determine whether a woman should be placed on tamoxifen prophylactically- it asks questions about prior breast biopsies, family history, pregnancies, etc… it DOES NOT ask about abortion, miscarriages, etc. I have on my hard drive just about every article on abortion and breast cancer-
and editorials explaining WHY the so called "positive" studies came
out the way they did. So you can waste taxpayer’s money on a fairytale idea by doing more studies, and I am sure that more will come out. I just hope that the future studies will continue to be similar to the 1/97 New England Journal study that helped ice the cake on this issue- it was well run, peer reviewed, and almost flawless. So it is safe NOT to intimidate women concerning a so-called abortion/breast cancer risk. Regards, AL.
Response:
Al Borges wrote:
Papa Jack wrote:
===================================================================== Al, please don’t delete all the attributions because it makes it difficult to figure out WHO said what. I fixed this one for you. =====================================================================
Papa Jack wrote: Get the book, _Lime 5_ by Mark Chrichton. That will clearly prove why I say the things I do about CDC. He names names, dates, and places to show that abortion industry executives controlled that section of the CDC for years.
=====================================================================
Al Borges wrote: The CDC is not just about abortion, Papa Jack.
===================================================================== Papa Jack remarked: I understand that. That is why I specified the section of CDC which deals with abortions and abortion stats(Abortion Surveillance Branch). According to Mark Chrichton, that department was run by people who were not only abortionists but who held different positions in the abortion industry. They were clearly not objective experts. For all I know, the other departments of CDC may be quite professional. =====================================================================
Al Borges wrote: I use it to get my continuing medical education (CME’s- used by doctors throughout the world to expand their medical knowledge).
===================================================================== Papa Jack remarked: That’s nice, but what does it have to do with them putting out questionable statistics on abortion? =====================================================================
Al Borges wrote: The CDC is government sponsored, and although nothing is perfectly central in all issues, it tries to be so.
===================================================================== Papa Jack remarked: Government sponsored simply means that politics is a major factor in picking executive level employees. Since the abortion industry and the radical women’s groups have lots of money and lawyers, they tend to be able to influence such decisions. Particularly in these times when King Clinton and Queen Hillary are so very Pro-Abortion. =====================================================================
Al Borges wrote: The PLie industry attacks on this peer-reveiwed, respected organization is a sham. They spread the truth- learn to live with it.
===================================================================== Papa Jack remarked: Your use of the PLie term greatly damages your credibility, Al. How would you react if I started referring to you as a Pro-Deather? CDC may be respected — but that doesn’t mean that abortionists haven’t had an excessive influence in one or two departments. Have you read _Lime 5_? Here is just a taste of some of the material in Chapter 4 which is about the CDC. Now please ask yourself if the FACTUAL DATA is correct. For example, did two abortionists named Cates and Grimes hold the position of head of the Abortion Surveillance Branch? The question is whether that standard has been met by the CDC. Starting at the top, since at least 1975, Dr. Willard Cates and Dr. David Grimes have both held various positions at the CDC and both have served terms as head of the Abortion Sur- veillance Branch. Each is also a practicing abortionist…. …A woman there told us that abortion mortality is handled by Dr. Clarice Green in the Pregnancy and Infant Health Branch. As it turns out, Green is not a permanent employee of the CDC, but is instead a two-year research fellow…. …However, she did tell us that all death certificates must first go through a department run by a woman named Lisa Koonin. In fact, Green told us that even if she learns of a possible abortion death from an outside source, she cannot investigate it until Koonin’s office confirms the death as being abortion- related. If her office does not confirm it, the investigation ends there. There are many many more facts in the book. Instead of attacking PLs for raising these issues, why don’t you do your homework, Al? Regards. — { 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 – Let Rush Limbaugh know you wish him a complete and quick recovery. Rush has always been there for his listeners, so now we can be there for Rush. Show your support by printing this online bumper sticker and displaying it in your car. ( printable bumper sticker at http://rushgetwellsoon.faithweb.com/) 
Categories: Internet Addiction Disorder | 
No Comments »
)) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – WHAT?????