Re: Another scumbag conservative.

ozarkheart@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 08:32:29 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
<klausschadenfreude@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Matt <matttelles@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

On Oct 18, 7:54 am, Klaus Schadenfreude
<klausschadenfre...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Matt <matttel...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in talk.politics.guns :





On Oct 18, 5:06 am, Klaus Schadenfreude
<klausschadenfre...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Matt <matttel...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

On Oct 16, 8:46 am, Klaus Schadenfreude
<klausschadenfre...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Matt <matttel...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

On Oct 15, 7:13 pm, ozarkhe...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 17:37:21 -0700 (PDT), Matt

<matttel...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 14, 7:13 pm, ozarkhe...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 11:54:56 -0700 (PDT), Matt

<matttel...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 14, 9:01 am, grey_ghost471-newsgro...@xxxxxxxxx
(Gray Ghost) wrote:
Matt <matttel...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:bed9c7ef-16fc-4a1d-9805-
ab43ad9ca...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

Nope. Why should he? He may have legal standing, if the
two are married.
He does not, however, have any standing in the issue
from the perspective
of carrying the child to term, or the potential health
issues involved. So, no,
sorry, he doesn't.

How about half of the geetic makeup of the fetii is his?
You want to assign ownership to the fetii? How does that
fit in?

It doesn't. The fetus is a part of the woman's body,
period.
As a result, until it is born, it has no 'rights' of its
own.

Incorrect.

Show proof. Scientific would be best, legal will be fine.

Check the womans DNA, then the unborn child's. You will find
they are related - but not the same. It is a different
person.

So anything that has DNA is a person?

LOL That's not even CLOSE to what he said

Then what did he say?

Mother and baby have different DNA. It was all very, very simple

And how does this prove his point?

Why should I have to explain that to you? I was merely pointing out
that you completely and utterly misinterpreted his very clear
statement.

Got it.

I don't think you do.

He get's it quite well.

Up tothis point Matt has been an interesting debate partner. Now that
he is suddenly playing stupid, well - that is too bad. I am really
sorry to see it

Based on my experience it's his standard reaction when he's left without an
argument(s) for the points and issues that oppose his views.


.

Relevant Pages