Mrs. Santorum

christiefan915 said:
Cite the cheap sexual insult either of them launched at you in particular.
Click to expand...

We aren't talking about me. We are talking about lying insulting threads. If you and your pals can't take it, then don't dish it out. You and your pals set the bar. Don't come crying to me about it.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
He didn't have to be don't ya know...

Haven't you heard how all Righties can read minds and see what REALLY happened even though they weren't within a thousand miles?
Click to expand...

Yep. Kinda like knowing the mind and hearts of the Santorum family. It's really none of your damn business. If you and your pals want to demonize decent honest people then don't be surprised when you get it right back in your face. Hypocrites.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
fool......the excommunication was reversed, not in court, but by the church......something doesn't have to be a legal issue to be appealed, it was appealed under the rules of the Catholic Church......
Click to expand...

You're an idiot. The bishop decided she disobeyed Church law so she was given some sort of penance to perform, which she complied with. This is not called an "appeal", unless you were just being sarcastic, which now that I think of it, is a distinct possibility.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Frankly I do not have to do anything, if you choose not to believe then that's because you wish to remain wilfully ignorant and there is no cure for that.
Click to expand...

He's full of it. Twenty years ago some doctors thought it was ethically acceptable to refuse treatment to AIDS patients, so they died. There are certainly doctors who would do the same for abortion patients. One of PA's odious RW pols tried to insert this language into a bill:

"Pitts' latest effort would allow doctors and hospitals to refuse to perform any abortion, even one that was needed to save the life of a pregnant woman. A Pitts spokesman told Talking Points Memo on Friday that the bill simply clarifies existing law and suggested that the new measure does not go beyond current law. (That's the same claim that defenders of the "forcible rape" language made before ultimately scrapping it.) But contra Pitts' attempt to downplay the new provision, a close look shows that it may change what hospitals are required to do in the very rare cases when an abortion is needed to save a woman's life—and the provision itself may even be unconstitutional.

As it stands right now, a pregnant woman with a life-threatening condition cannot be turned away by a hospital, even if her condition requires a doctor to abort her child. A federal law, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), requires hospitals that receive federal funds (almost all of them do) to provide you with emergency treatment or transfer you to a hospital that can. Pitts' provision would trump that law, allowing a doctor to not only deny an abortion to a dying pregnant woman but to also refuse to transfer that woman to a place where she might be able to receive an abortion. In fact, the hospital would not be required to do anything at all."

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/joe-pitts-protect-life-act-abortion
 
Alias said:
We aren't talking about me. We are talking about lying insulting threads. If you and your pals can't take it, then don't dish it out. You and your pals set the bar. Don't come crying to me about it.
Click to expand...

I specifically mentioned your cheap sexual insult of calling them whores. Now you're moving the goalposts since you can't find where they said the same to you.

Lame.
 
christiefan915 said:
I specifically mentioned your cheap sexual insult of calling them whores. Now you're moving the goalposts since you can't find where they said the same to you.

Lame.
Click to expand...

I didn't call them "whores". I called them "whore sheep". Do you believe Darla and Rana are "sheep"?
 
christiefan915 said:
I think that the writer wants to add an extra helping of sexually-degrading insult to someone he considers a mindless follower of an ideology.
Click to expand...

Has Darla ever said things around here to add an extra helping of sexually-degrading insult to someone she considers a mindless follower of an ideology?
 
Alias said:
Has Darla ever said things around here to add an extra helping of sexually-degrading insult to someone she considers a mindless follower of an ideology?
Click to expand...

so worried about what everyone ELSE says around here...when you going to start taking responsibility for the filth YOU spread?
 
ZappasGuitar said:
He's always so concerned with everyone else's "honesty" let's see if he will own up to his own lack thereof.
Click to expand...

You've never corrected that glaring flaw you have. The blind spot that prevents you from seeing the initiator and only the responder.
 
christiefan915 said:
He's full of it. Twenty years ago some doctors thought it was ethically acceptable to refuse treatment to AIDS patients, so they died. There are certainly doctors who would do the same for abortion patients. One of PA's odious RW pols tried to insert this language into a bill:

"Pitts' latest effort would allow doctors and hospitals to refuse to perform any abortion, even one that was needed to save the life of a pregnant woman. A Pitts spokesman told Talking Points Memo on Friday that the bill simply clarifies existing law and suggested that the new measure does not go beyond current law. (That's the same claim that defenders of the "forcible rape" language made before ultimately scrapping it.) But contra Pitts' attempt to downplay the new provision, a close look shows that it may change what hospitals are required to do in the very rare cases when an abortion is needed to save a woman's life—and the provision itself may even be unconstitutional.

As it stands right now, a pregnant woman with a life-threatening condition cannot be turned away by a hospital, even if her condition requires a doctor to abort her child. A federal law, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), requires hospitals that receive federal funds (almost all of them do) to provide you with emergency treatment or transfer you to a hospital that can. Pitts' provision would trump that law, allowing a doctor to not only deny an abortion to a dying pregnant woman but to also refuse to transfer that woman to a place where she might be able to receive an abortion. In fact, the hospital would not be required to do anything at all."

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/joe-pitts-protect-life-act-abortion
Click to expand...

I wonder what these people do when it is their own sister, wife, daughter, I bet, just like the Santorums the rules don't apply then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top