If A Person Is Pro-Life.....

[Busyman]

Cheese referred to post 10.

Did you read post 10.

One assumes not, as you are now demonstrating that you didn't read j2's other posts.

you're skimming them aren't you. Then making assumptions about what he probably said.

I said "shoot myself in the foot" in post 78.

Again no pwnage since I didn't.

The post is not lengthy.

[JPaul]

I was more meaning this

edit: and somewhere in a long-winded post he actually answered.

Originally Posted by j2k4
I think accomodation for incest and rape must be made

You know, the bit where you say that he had in fact answered. In spite of all your ramblings about you being the only person, ever, anywhere to answer questions.

[MCHeshPants420]

I was more meaning this

edit: and somewhere in a long-winded post he actually answered.

You know, the bit where you say that he had in fact answered. In spite of all your ramblings about you being the only person, ever, anywhere to answer questions.

Post 36 this thread as well.

[Busyman]

I was more meaning this

edit: and somewhere in a long-winded post he actually answered.

You know, the bit where you say that he had in fact answered. In spite of all your ramblings about you being the only person, ever, anywhere to answer questions.

Hmmm, the post was from March, J. Furthermore, that answer was hidden within over half a page of his post. It was a needle in a needlestack.

Your stance is a little more ambiguous. I use stance lightly.

You say that you can see "instances where there is an argument".

Either way a child's life is deemed less important due to rape and that is hypocritical.

It is placing the importance of the mother in a non-life threatening situation, over the child.

[JPaul]

I was more meaning this




You know, the bit where you say that he had in fact answered. In spite of all your ramblings about you being the only person, ever, anywhere to answer questions.

Post 36 this thread as well.

Sorry I'm going to have to wait for busy to tell me what you meant by that. After the last debacle caused by post 61.

[Busyman]

I was more meaning this




You know, the bit where you say that he had in fact answered. In spite of all your ramblings about you being the only person, ever, anywhere to answer questions.

Post 36 this thread as well.

You mean where he asks j2 to explain?

[Busyman]

Post 36 this thread as well.

Sorry I'm going to have to wait for busy to tell me what you meant by that. After the last debacle caused by post 61.

Or what I thought he meant by that.....

[JPaul]

I was more meaning this




You know, the bit where you say that he had in fact answered. In spite of all your ramblings about you being the only person, ever, anywhere to answer questions.

Hmmm, the post was from March, J. Furthermore, that answer was hidden within over half a page of his post. It was a needle in a needlestack.

Your stance is a little more ambiguous. I use stance lightly.

You say that you can see "instances where there is an argument".

Either way a child's life is deemed less important due to rape and that is hypocritical.

It is placing the importance of the mother in a non-life threatening situation, over the child.

FFS how many times, just because I can see there is an argument doesn't mean I agree with it.

I can see the argument for torture as well and can even understand why some people would find it acceptable in certain circumstances, that doesn't mean I agree with them

I never, ever place the child's life as being anything other than of paramount importance. However there are instances where there are other considerations. To me that only involves another human life and does not include matters of convenience or cosmetics.

[MCHeshPants420]

I was more meaning this




You know, the bit where you say that he had in fact answered. In spite of all your ramblings about you being the only person, ever, anywhere to answer questions.

Hmmm, the post was from March, J. Furthermore, that answer was hidden within over half a page of his post. It was a needle in a needlestack.

Your stance is a little more ambiguous. I use stance lightly.

You say that you can see "instances where there is an argument".

Either way a child's life is deemed less important due to rape and that is hypocritical.

It is placing the importance of the mother in a non-life threatening situation, over the child.

So you're ignoring the psychological impact a "rape child" could have which could be potentially life threatening?

[JPaul]

See my last.