So you're ridiculing the guy because he went into a particular restaurant?What kind of standard are you using? How does his pro-life stance fit into this at all?Now a "pro-death" abortion proponent going into a place that had "live" music -- THAT would be funny! No, wait -- a pro-abortion advocate going into Chili's, where they serve "baby"-back ribs! Hilarious!
"A particular restaurant." Nice try, wordkyle. That "particular restaurant" is Hooters, as I know you can tell -- nothin illegal about it, but it's all boobs n' butts, the sexual objectification of women who, should they give in to their or any man's urges (willingly or unwillingly), would be subject to the laws this jacktard thinks he has the right to impose on the very bodies which he stares and slobbers at over a plate of hotwings.
You are losing your touch BG and it seems like the descent has been happening for a couple of months now.Why the bitterness?
touche' Gleemonex & thanks for pointing out the irony.
That is the closest Mr. Patrick has gotten to a vagina since he was dragged out of one.
You can't be pro-life and like boobs?You're going to have to spell out that inconsistency a little more clearly for me. Call me dense.
Gleemonex - Hooter's is a restaurant, not a strip club nor a brothel. You have indirectly called every woman working at Hooter's a whore. Nice.Using your and Barry's standard, a pro-life advocate could never attend a sporting event (might get a glimpse of a scantily-clad cheerleader); never go to a movie (a bikini scene might show up -- and forget about going swimming anywhere); never go to a mall (those mall tarts dress too provocatively.)And so what if he enjoys looking at sexy women? Does that automatically lead to destroying the unborn? You guys are stretching way too far for this one.
seems to me these abortion advocates go by diferent standards
you cant be against abortion and go to hooters? you cant be against dismembering a baby piece by piece and like to be waited on by pretty women? come on now , barron. you will never win this argument
To gleemonex...EXCELLENT work! However, do NOT hold your breath waiting for wordkyle to comprehend the meaning of your text. There will ALWAYS be those people who are not happy just living THEIR lives but feel obliged to FORCE other people to live by THEIR standards.Do you EVER notice how the anti-choice people NEVER offer to cough up the emotional and finacial resources it would take to raise the approximately 4,000 daily aborted fetuses in the United States?Do you notice how the anti-choice people declare abortion is murder EXCEPT when THEY decide it is acceptable for a woman to abort HER fetus? Proof, yet again that wacky anti-choice people BELIEVE they know what is right and best for EVERYONE.THAT type of arrogance is something that is too stupid to argue with and too dangerous NOT to fight with our votes come election day.
To She-Who-Speaks-With-Flying-Spittle: 1) This whole posting is because pro-abortion advocates like Barry, Glee and yourself impose special standards on those with whom you disagree. It would be nice if your Puritanical standards applied to everyone equally. At least you'd be consistent.2) Those who favor destroying unborn babies (why don't you guys just go ahead and say "babies?" Uncomfortable?) pretend that the billions of dollars churches and organizations donate to helping families and children, in addition to their thousands of hours of volunteer work, don't exist. Call a church (if you're not afraid of bursting into flames) and ask what you can do to help. They'll find a place for you.3) We're not "anti-choice." We want a woman to choose life for her unborn baby.4) Statistically, a completed abortion is 100% dangerous for the unborn baby. The pro-life option is significantly less dangerous than that.
Good job wordkyle: I don't get the irony here either. So, they are saying only baby killers are allowed to appreciate a womans body. Nice logic!And it's not anti-choice. The 'choice' was made when they 'chose' to have sex and get pregnant. When that is accomplished, the second 'choice' is now made. I prefer they would 'choose' to either keep the baby or adopt it out. They 'choose' to kill it, terminate it, end it's life early, however you want to put it. Their 'choice' ends up with death everytime.
So, the guy loves women and babies---and your point is???Gleeless and MZguided are probably just jealous because there is no way Hooter's would ever hire them!
Why do you pro-lifers still love God when he kills more unborn babies than all abortions in the world combined?
When God causes a woman to miscarry it is not because that woman was a slut and whored around and didn't need to have a baby in the first place. He has a much better understanding as to what is best for us. Now when a whore chooses to end her pregrancy cause she can't keep her legs closed the only reasoning is selfishness. Of course there is exceptions and special circumstances, such as rape, when the morning after pill is justified, but being a whore does not give you the right to kill a baby. Not when there are millions of women out there who can't have children and who rely on adoption as their only hope of being a mother. Which I also believe is in God's plan.
Yeah...I can really tell that this picture is of Dan Patrick! I really do not care if lawmakers live what they legislate, I want them to legislate for the people, the majority. I could care less if he gets a blow-job with his hot wings and goes to church on Sunday as long as he does his job.
11:40AM, why doesn't God give the little zygotes he murders a chance to decide for themselves if they'd like to live or die? I mean free will isn't a gift you can take back whenever you want.
11:40 One problem I have with your comment is saying that "God causes the miscarry". I don't believe that. God allows it but doesn't cause it. They occur naturally or by other factors, but not caused by God. You are putting God in the abortion business by saying that.
ANON 12:02 PM: You do realize that you're trying to tell God what He can and can't do?
I should have known MzChief would chime in with another ESSAY telling how she's right and anybody who shares an opinion that differs with hers is an idiot. I also found it low that you posted that comment on the front page in an effort to poke fun, but it's your blog, Barry. Why is it so funny that someone would have such a strong belief that abortion is wrong? We're not all as erudite and verbal as you and Mzchief when it comes to expressing ourselves but that doesn't make our opinions less valid than yours.That said, I say let the pro choice people have their say. If they want to kill their babies let them deal with the consequences. As for "letting others live their own lives," by my recollection, nobody is stopping anybody from having an abortion...you just have to do it before the third trimester.
12:02PM, Webster defines murder as "the unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of one human being by another." Therefore, God does not murder. He is the author of life and taker of life whenever he so chooses. So, your assertion that God murders is completely inappropriate and false.
wordkyle, I was asking a question. But you do have a point. I'm tired of God interfering in my life. Its time he gets his own life. I mean, he can't even get his son out of his house, and he thinks he can tell me that I can't do this or that? Please.
One trememdous positive about abortion is that since they are so enamored with killing the unborn including their own, eventually all libs will be gone!Go pro-choice!!!
12:42PM, how dare you use the words of mere humans to interpret what God does. Is Mr. Webster God? No. Therefore you euphemisms of what he does do not apply.
12:59PM, Mr. Webster is obviously a better source than you in defining such terms. I will stand on the truth regardless of how you interpret or misinterpret it, that God alone is the giver(no euphamism) and taker(no euphamism) of life whenever and however he so chooses.
Post a Comment