PDA

View Full Version : Bricks and Tampons Intended to be Thrown at Pro-Life Lawmakers-Texas




Origanalist
07-12-2013, 08:41 PM
Bricks and Tampons Intended to be Thrown at Pro-Life Lawmakers Confiscated by Police UPDATE: Jars of Feces Too
Katie Pavlich | Jul 12, 2013

http://media.townhall.com/townhall/reu/ha/uploads/2013/7/12/6.png

Apparently chanting "hail Satan," "f*ck the church," "bro-choice" and holding signs that say "hoes before embryos" just wasn't enough for pro-abortion protestors in Texas. According to reports on the ground, police have confiscated bricks, tampons, pads and condoms protestors planned to throw at pro-life lawmakers Friday before a final vote on legislation banning abortions past five months. Protestors continue to be loud inside the Capitol, but the Gallery where debate takes place is silent and under strict rules.

If you're thinking the Occupy movement must be making a comeback through pro-abortion rallies, you're not wrong. Many of the same people involved in the Occupy movement are based in Austin and deeply connected to radical, far Left movements.

UPDATE: The Texas Tribune is also reporting about bricks being confiscated.

DPS officials has been searching bags before letting people into the gallery, requiring them to throw away paper goods such as magazines, receipts, feminine pads and tampons. One DPS officer said authorities had been instructed by the Senate's sergeant at arms to confiscate anything that could be thrown from the gallery at senators on the floor. She said they had already found objects such as bricks, paint and glitter in bags.
UPDATE II: Police have also confiscated jars of urine and feces.

During these inspections, DPS officers have thus far discovered one jar suspected to contain urine, 18 jars suspected to contain feces, and three bottles suspected to contain paint. All of these items – as well as significant quantities of feminine hygiene products, glitter and confetti possessed by individuals – were required to be discarded; otherwise those individuals were denied entry into the gallery.

UPDATE III: Just, gross.

Josh Rubin @CNNExpress

DPS is no longer confiscating unopened tampons or other the like. Say the issue was earlier some were trying to bring USED ones in. #txlege
2:08 PM - 12 Jul 2013 from Austin, TX, United States
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/07/12/police-in-austin-confiscate-tampons-and-bricks-from-proaborts-who-planned-to-throw-them-at-lawmakers-n1639748

James Madison
07-12-2013, 08:49 PM
You know it's bad when banning abortion after 5 months is 'pro-life'.

Edit: Can we throw discarded embryos at the protesters? Maybe a placenta or amniotic fluid?

Origanalist
07-12-2013, 08:52 PM
You know it's bad when banning abortion after 5 months is 'pro-life'.

Pretty radical isn't it?

Carlybee
07-12-2013, 09:27 PM
Troopers arrested four women after they tried to chain themselves to a railing of the Texas Senate gallery before a vote on an abortion-restrictions bill.


One of the women succeeded in chaining herself to the railing at the front of the overhead gallery, prompting a 10-minute recess in the proceeding. Troopers with the Texas Department of Public Safety had to send for equipment to unchain the woman, and the other three were removed immediately and placed in plastic wrist restraints.


http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/state&id=9171048

Origanalist
07-12-2013, 09:56 PM
You know it's bad when banning abortion after 5 months is 'pro-life'.

Edit: Can we throw discarded embryos at the protesters? Maybe a placenta or amniotic fluid?

They would probably eat them.

Origanalist
07-12-2013, 10:07 PM
"hoes before embryos"

Gotta love that.

EBounding
07-12-2013, 10:07 PM
I really don't get why the pro-choicers use religion to try to discredit pro-lifers. The Bible doesn't say anything about abortion--it's just obvious that butchering a 5 month old baby in the womb is wrong. Of course I don't get why they need to hurl feces and urine to protect that "right" either.

heavenlyboy34
07-12-2013, 10:11 PM
I really don't get why the pro-choicers use religion to try to discredit pro-lifers. The Bible doesn't say anything about abortion--it's just obvious that butchering a 5 month old baby in the womb is wrong. Of course I don't get why they need to hurl feces and urine to protect that "right" either.
The Bible does get into the supposed sin of Onanism...which could be turned into an argument against abortion if you know mental gymnastics, rhetoric, and theology.

NewRightLibertarian
07-12-2013, 10:16 PM
I really don't get why the pro-choicers use religion to try to discredit pro-lifers. The Bible doesn't say anything about abortion--it's just obvious that butchering a 5 month old baby in the womb is wrong. Of course I don't get why they need to hurl feces and urine to protect that "right" either.

They're apart of the death culture. The only 'right' they care about is for a woman to murder her fetus in the womb no matter how developed it is with the taxpayer fitting the bill, of course.

oyarde
07-12-2013, 10:38 PM
I have a Grandaughter , beautiful , healthy, happy that was born @ around 5 /6 months, now a little over a yr old , perfectly caught up with where she would be if she was about full term. Call killing that whatever you like, I know what it is .Even if you serve no God , it is easily seen as wrong, would you want someone to do it to you ? That is all I have to say on this barbaric matter .

oyarde
07-12-2013, 10:41 PM
They're apart of the death culture. The only 'right' they care about is for a woman to murder her fetus in the womb no matter how developed it is with the taxpayer fitting the bill, of course.

I would rather pay to kill those who would steal my money to squander...... at least they have done something wrong.Everyone knows stealing is wrong .This is why they feel compelled to call it somthing else , like redistribution......

oyarde
07-12-2013, 10:49 PM
I have lived by the sword and may die by the sword, I deserve that and seek no forgiveness for myself. I have never though, been flinging shit at people to demand I could murder the innocent, unarmed , children, simply proof there is little hope for human kind .

Anti Federalist
07-12-2013, 11:40 PM
They're apart of the death culture. The only 'right' they care about is for a woman to murder her fetus in the womb no matter how developed it is with the taxpayer fitting the bill, of course.

Which is why they will worship their oppressors and destroyers.

Far from rising up against them, this current crop will enjoy not only raining death down on their fellow citizens, but will welcome it when it comes for them.

World weary, cynical and jaded, they are the "hollow men" (even though in this case it looks like they are all women).

oyarde
07-13-2013, 01:17 AM
Which is why they will worship their oppressors and destroyers.

Far from rising up against them, this current crop will enjoy not only raining death down on their fellow citizens, but will welcome it when it comes for them.

World weary, cynical and jaded, they are the "hollow men" (even though in this case it looks like they are all women).

Good point , nothing suprises me at where we have arrived.....

kcchiefs6465
07-13-2013, 01:22 AM
Immorality breeds.

Edited to clarify: I am not referring to any person specifically or children being born. It is a double entendre but my point originally was that US being around the world, what we do,... how does one expect morality here? Call it Karma, or inherent wickedry or whatever we are simply stating the problem. Everyone states a problem. The solution is what truly matters.

As a young male in this country I feel I was left a world of wickedry with an expectation for every solution. We are speaking of centuries of failed policies and propaganda with children birthed in to try and re-school educate for positive growth. It is a monumental challenge.

Education, not schooling, is the key. I refuse the premise that people don't want to be free, as apparent as it seems. People don't know what freedom is.

ETA another clarification for "I refuse the premise that people don't want to be free, as apparent as it seems.":

Does anyone think when you keep a dog in a cage, beat it if doesn't listen to your commands of roll over or fetch, beat it for anything, whenever you feel; but you show the dog compassion, you feed it, take it for walks, whisper sweet nothings how much you love it, verbally stimulate the dog as being a good boy, you know, he don't stray too far, that the dog wouldn't come back to the same place if freed? Stockholm Syndrome? A place where they're guaranteed a meal?

This accepted notion that people don't want to be free doesn't compute. It's anathema to the way I think. People are born free. It is natural. How did this propaganda become accepted as fact? (that people don't want to be free) I'm sure the years have discouraged many. Is my analogy of a broken and whipped dog at all relatable to the people here in Amerika?

GunnyFreedom
07-13-2013, 01:31 AM
The Bible does get into the supposed sin of Onanism...which could be turned into an argument against abortion if you know mental gymnastics, rhetoric, and theology.

I've corrected this so many times I'm a bit sick of regurgitating it.

That passage has NOTHING to do with masturbation or the waste of seed outside of a very specific context.

When your brother died before he gave his wife a child, it was required by Israelite law that the brother give the widow a child in the name of the dead husband. Onan took his pleasure under the guise of fulfilling that requirement, but refused to impregnate her because of the inconvenience of a nephew who was actually his child.

Onan was struck dead because he failed to impregnate the widow of his dead brother and give her a child in his brother's name as was required by Jewish law. I don't know how in the world this onanism as masturbation got started, but even a cursory reading of Genesis 38 by the victim of a lobotomy wouldn't come up with that conclusion.

It's so frustrating because it's so obvious, and yet SOOOO many people hold this perverted understanding of what they think the passage says.

:weep: :(

CPUd
07-13-2013, 02:02 AM
What NGO's are behind these protests?

puppetmaster
07-13-2013, 02:02 AM
I've corrected this so many times I'm a bit sick of regurgitating it.

That passage has NOTHING to do with masturbation or the waste of seed outside of a very specific context.

When your brother died before he gave his wife a child, it was required by Israelite law that the brother give the widow a child in the name of the dead husband. Onan took his pleasure under the guise of fulfilling that requirement, but refused to impregnate her because of the inconvenience of a nephew who was actually his child.

Onan was struck dead because he failed to impregnate the widow of his dead brother and give her a child in his brother's name as was required by Jewish law. I don't know how in the world this onanism as masturbation got started, but even a cursory reading of Genesis 38 by the victim of a lobotomy wouldn't come up with that conclusion.

It's so frustrating because it's so obvious, and yet SOOOO many people hold this perverted understanding of what they think the passage says.

:weep: :(

Thanks for the clarification. Gotta tell you though. That is some scary stuff too. Death to you if you do not have sex with your sister in-law? Sick

amy31416
07-13-2013, 06:08 AM
I read the OP a couple times. I honestly can't comprehend this. Was there a meeting of pro-choice people where they discussed strategies to protest, repeal or pressure to defeat this abortion bill, and they all agreed on:

1. taking a shit in a jar and bringing it to the protest (to do what with?)
2. going to the hardware store and picking up a few bricks (to do what with?)
3. saving their used tampons and bringing them along (to do what with?)

I mean, is the intent to throw bricks and jars of poop at people? If so, that's pretty damned dangerous--and they were still let into the building though it was obvious that they had criminal intent?

donnay
07-13-2013, 07:48 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41XENUuwKP8


I certainly weep for the future. The girl in the sunglasses is in for a rude awakening.

Philhelm
07-13-2013, 07:52 AM
Far from rising up against them, this current crop will enjoy not only raining death down on their fellow citizens, but will welcome it when it comes for them.

They would be horrifically ill-prepared when death eventually seeks them.

Origanalist
07-13-2013, 07:54 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41XENUuwKP8


I certainly weep for the future. The girl in the sunglasses is in for a rude awakening.

Wow, I always knew they were ghouls, I didn't think they would be that open about it.

liberalnurse
07-13-2013, 07:55 AM
You know it's bad when banning abortion after 5 months is 'pro-life'.

+rep

Contumacious
07-13-2013, 09:11 AM
Bricks and Tampons Intended to be Thrown at Pro-Life Lawmakers Confiscated by Police UPDATE: Jars of Feces Too
Katie Pavlich | Jul 12, 2013

Let's fight fire with fire:

Abortions Clinics in Indian Reservations !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (http://www.wnd.com/2006/04/35526/)

.

Anti Federalist
07-13-2013, 11:18 AM
I understand your points.

I think this comes down a chicken or the egg type of question, and which came first.

In this regard, I think the natural state of humanity is tyranny.

It is only for brief periods, with very limited populations of people, that anything close to freedom comes to flourish.


Immorality breeds.

Edited to clarify: I am not referring to any person specifically or children being born. It is a double entendre but my point originally was that US being around the world, what we do,... how does one expect morality here? Call it Karma, or inherent wickedry or whatever we are simply stating the problem. Everyone states a problem. The solution is what truly matters.

As a young male in this country I feel I was left a world of wickedry with an expectation for every solution. We are speaking of centuries of failed policies and propaganda with children birthed in to try and re-school educate for positive growth. It is a monumental challenge.

Education, not schooling, is the key. I refuse the premise that people don't want to be free, as apparent as it seems. People don't know what freedom is.

ETA another clarification for "I refuse the premise that people don't want to be free, as apparent as it seems.":

Does anyone think when you keep a dog in a cage, beat it if doesn't listen to your commands of roll over or fetch, beat it for anything, whenever you feel; but you show the dog compassion, you feed it, take it for walks, whisper sweet nothings how much you love it, verbally stimulate the dog as being a good boy, you know, he don't stray too far, that the dog wouldn't come back to the same place if freed? Stockholm Syndrome? A place where they're guaranteed a meal?

This accepted notion that people don't want to be free doesn't compute. It's anathema to the way I think. People are born free. It is natural. How did this propaganda become accepted as fact? (that people don't want to be free) I'm sure the years have discouraged many. Is my analogy of a broken and whipped dog at all relatable to the people here in Amerika?

oyarde
07-13-2013, 11:28 AM
I understand your points.

I think this comes down a chicken or the egg type of question, and which came first.

In this regard, I think the natural state of humanity is tyranny.

It is only for brief periods, with very limited populations of people, that anything close to freedom comes to flourish.

I have come to the conclusion also that the natural state of humaity is tyranny.I wish it was not so .I can only go on a lifetime of observation and study.

GunnyFreedom
07-13-2013, 10:43 PM
Thanks for the clarification. Gotta tell you though. That is some scary stuff too. Death to you if you do not have sex with your sister in-law? Sick

Not really. Nothing would have happened to him at all if he had chosen NOT to have sex with her, except that her family might be a bit angry with him. Problem was he DID choose to have sex with her, under the guise of fulfilling the obligation of providing his dead brother with an heir, but then decided to take his pleasure while refusing to sire the heir, which was the whole purpose of the exercise.

If you examine the dynamics of what was going on here, Onan basically committed a kind of incestual rape. Which is why God struck him dead.

heavenlyboy34
07-13-2013, 10:55 PM
I've corrected this so many times I'm a bit sick of regurgitating it.

That passage has NOTHING to do with masturbation or the waste of seed outside of a very specific context.

When your brother died before he gave his wife a child, it was required by Israelite law that the brother give the widow a child in the name of the dead husband. Onan took his pleasure under the guise of fulfilling that requirement, but refused to impregnate her because of the inconvenience of a nephew who was actually his child.

Onan was struck dead because he failed to impregnate the widow of his dead brother and give her a child in his brother's name as was required by Jewish law. I don't know how in the world this onanism as masturbation got started, but even a cursory reading of Genesis 38 by the victim of a lobotomy wouldn't come up with that conclusion.

It's so frustrating because it's so obvious, and yet SOOOO many people hold this perverted understanding of what they think the passage says.

:weep: :(
Totally agree. But people tend to read what they want into scripture-especially when they discard context. :(

angelatc
07-13-2013, 11:45 PM
I mean, is the intent to throw bricks and jars of poop at people? If so, that's pretty damned dangerous--and they were still let into the building though it was obvious that they had criminal intent?

We are better than the monkeys, 'cos they only throw poop.

eduardo89
07-14-2013, 03:13 AM
I've corrected this so many times I'm a bit sick of regurgitating it.

That passage has NOTHING to do with masturbation or the waste of seed outside of a very specific context.

St. Augustine certainly disagrees with you:


For it is illicit and shameful for a man to lie with even his lawful wife in such a way as to prevent the conception of offspring. This is what Onan, son of Judah, used to do; and for that God slew him

This has always been the position of the Church! This has been taught for 2000 years! Even the fathers of the Protestant Reformation agreed with this.

John Calvin:

Besides, he [Onan] not only defrauded his brother of the right due him, but also preferred his semen to putrify on the ground, rather than to beget a son in his brother’s name. The Jews quite immodestly gabble concerning this thing. ...The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. ...This impiety is especially condemned, now by the Spirit through Moses’ mouth... If any woman ejects a foetus from her womb by drugs, it is reckoned a crime incapable of expiation and deservedly Onan incurred upon himself the same kind of punishment, infecting the earth by his semen, in order that Tamar might not conceive a future human being as an inhabitant of the earth.

Martin Luther:

… the exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches, follows. ...so when he went in to his brother’s wife, he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. and what he did was displeasing in the sight of the lord, and he slew him also.

Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. ... He was inflamed with the basest spite and hatred. ... Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed and evil deed. Therefore God punished him. … That worthless fellow refused to exercise. He preferred polluting himself with a most disgraceful sin to raising up offspring for his brother. Therefore Onan, unwilling to perform this obligation, spilled his seed. That was a sin far greater than adultery or incest, and it provoked God to such fierce wrath that He destroyed him immediately.

Even later prominent Protestants such as John Wesley agreed with this view:

The next brother Onan was, according to the ancient usage, married to the widow, to preserve the name of his deceased brother Er that died childless. This custom of marrying the brother’s widow was afterward made one of the laws of Moses, Deut. 25:5. Onan, though he consented to marry the widow, yet to the great abuse of his own body, of the wife he had married and the memory of his brother that was gone, he refused to raise up seed unto his brother. Those sins that dishonour the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he did displeased the Lord -- And it is to be feared, thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls.


I am afraid this leaves you in total opposition to the constant interpretation of the Church over the past 2000 years. You are also in opposition to the Protestant forefathers who read no ambiguity into the Biblical text either. The text itself, as well as the consistent Christian and Jewish interpretations of it, proves that it is not ambiguous. It also proves that those who oppose this interpretation are clearly going against Sacred Scripture as interpreted in the Christian tradition. This would include almost all major Protestant denominations today, which until the Lambeth Conference of 1930 held to traditional Christian teaching on contraception and masturbation.


When your brother died before he gave his wife a child, it was required by Israelite law that the brother give the widow a child in the name of the dead husband. Onan took his pleasure under the guise of fulfilling that requirement, but refused to impregnate her because of the inconvenience of a nephew who was actually his child.

Onan was struck dead because he failed to impregnate the widow of his dead brother and give her a child in his brother's name as was required by Jewish law. I don't know how in the world this onanism as masturbation got started, but even a cursory reading of Genesis 38 by the victim of a lobotomy wouldn't come up with that conclusion.

Read Deuteronomy 25:1-10, which eliminates this possible explanation. It says in Deuteronomy, that regardless of a man's motives for refusing to raise up seed for a dead brother, the man is not to be put to death. Thus, the person not only does not marry, but also provides no offspring for his brother who died: The Levirate responsibility. Here in Deuteronomy, he is to be humiliated only (shoe pulled off, face spit on, etc.). On the other hand, Onan was put to death for what he did, while the man in Deu. 25 is not.

I think you should also read this: http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt67.html

Origanalist
07-14-2013, 04:05 AM
St. Augustine certainly disagrees with you:



This has always been the position of the Church! This has been taught for 2000 years! Even the fathers of the Protestant Reformation agreed with this.

John Calvin:


Martin Luther:


Even later prominent Protestants such as John Wesley agreed with this view:


I am afraid this leaves you in total opposition to the constant interpretation of the Church over the past 2000 years. You are also in opposition to the Protestant forefathers who read no ambiguity into the Biblical text either. The text itself, as well as the consistent Christian and Jewish interpretations of it, proves that it is not ambiguous. It also proves that those who oppose this interpretation are clearly going against Sacred Scripture as interpreted in the Christian tradition. This would include almost all major Protestant denominations today, which until the Lambeth Conference of 1930 held to traditional Christian teaching on contraception and masturbation.



Read Deuteronomy 25:1-10, which eliminates this possible explanation. It says in Deuteronomy, that regardless of a man's motives for refusing to raise up seed for a dead brother, the man is not to be put to death. Thus, the person not only does not marry, but also provides no offspring for his brother who died: The Levirate responsibility. Here in Deuteronomy, he is to be humiliated only (shoe pulled off, face spit on, etc.). On the other hand, Onan was put to death for what he did, while the man in Deu. 25 is not.

I think you should also read this: http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt67.html

Am I dreaming?????? :eek: The legendary eduardo89 has posted on a thread I started??????? :eek::eek::toady:

GunnyFreedom
07-14-2013, 04:17 AM
St. Augustine certainly disagrees with you:



This has always been the position of the Church! This has been taught for 2000 years! Even the fathers of the Protestant Reformation agreed with this.

John Calvin:


Martin Luther:


Even later prominent Protestants such as John Wesley agreed with this view:


I am afraid this leaves you in total opposition to the constant interpretation of the Church over the past 2000 years. You are also in opposition to the Protestant forefathers who read no ambiguity into the Biblical text either. The text itself, as well as the consistent Christian and Jewish interpretations of it, proves that it is not ambiguous. It also proves that those who oppose this interpretation are clearly going against Sacred Scripture as interpreted in the Christian tradition. This would include almost all major Protestant denominations today, which until the Lambeth Conference of 1930 held to traditional Christian teaching on contraception and masturbation.



Read Deuteronomy 25:1-10, which eliminates this possible explanation. It says in Deuteronomy, that regardless of a man's motives for refusing to raise up seed for a dead brother, the man is not to be put to death. Thus, the person not only does not marry, but also provides no offspring for his brother who died: The Levirate responsibility. Here in Deuteronomy, he is to be humiliated only (shoe pulled off, face spit on, etc.). On the other hand, Onan was put to death for what he did, while the man in Deu. 25 is not.

I think you should also read this: http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt67.html


We must be speaking different versions of English, because it looks to me like Luther and Calvin are saying what I've said. The sin was failing to raise up an heir for his brother's widow. The only people requiring the heir be conceived in marriage are not God, but moralists as errant in their own short sightedness then as they are today.

Even if they didn't already agree with my analysis (I really don't get how you find them disagreeing with me in those statements...Even Augustine MOSTLY agrees with what I said only he builds additional hedges around the Word -- Hey didn't God call that practice sinful?) it's irrelevant. The scripture is quite clear on what happened and why, and if ten billion people from all of history believed a lie, I will still hold the truth.

Forget what people are trying to tell you that the scripture means and why it means something completely different than what it says, thats just dumb. And sinful besides. Just read the scripture and it's blatant why Onan was struck down. He refused to give his dead brother an heir. Full stop. Anything else is sinful people polluting the Word with their own fetishes.

GunnyFreedom
07-14-2013, 04:21 AM
And look at that tripe from Wesley! "Onan's sin was because he married the widow like the law required, therefore masturbation eeevil." seriously WTF is that? There is so much wrong with that I can hardly begin.

First the requirement had nothing to do with marrying, but producing an heir, so that was just made up. second, it's like he stops and goes to a wholly different topic as if there was some logical progression.

Congratulations Eduardo, you just convinced me that John Wesley was a functional moron. :-/

GunnyFreedom
07-14-2013, 04:29 AM
These people probably believed that lucifer was an angel who fell from heaven and became satan too. Doesn't make that any less a work of pure fiction written by a guy named Dante Alighieri. Wait...was he one of the apostles? lol no.

JCDenton0451
07-14-2013, 04:31 AM
Texas Republicans deserve it. lol

oyarde
07-14-2013, 09:41 AM
These people probably believed that lucifer was an angel who fell from heaven and became satan too. Doesn't make that any less a work of pure fiction written by a guy named Dante Alighieri. Wait...was he one of the apostles? lol no.

Ahhh , Dante .Where did he get an imagination like that ?

Occam's Banana
07-14-2013, 09:58 AM
These people probably believed that lucifer was an angel who fell from heaven and became satan too. Doesn't make that any less a work of pure fiction written by a guy named Dante Alighieri. Wait...was he one of the apostles? lol no.

Was that Dante? Or was it Milton? (Or did Milton get it from Dante?)

GunnyFreedom
07-14-2013, 01:45 PM
Was that Dante? Or was it Milton? (Or did Milton get it from Dante?)


Ehh, I think I got my fictions blended, thanks for th correct. Milton did the whole lucifer/satan thing, and Dante did the whole hell as a fiery torture pit run by sadistic demons thing. Both are pure fiction, and both have come to be accepted by the church as though it were canon.

bunklocoempire
07-14-2013, 04:21 PM
We are better than the monkeys, 'cos they only throw poop.

http://goo.gl/TiLy0

http://goo.gl/nBmt3

Proud monkey keep on rollin'.

I<3Liberty
07-14-2013, 04:46 PM
This is just so disgusting and repulsive, I don't even want to comment, but I wanted to add that the extreme pro-lifers have also gotten pretty rowdy. Also, Randall Terry (a pro-life activist that ran in the 2012 democratic primaries) chained himself to a sink at an abortion clinic and continues to protest. In addition, a huge catholic church close in my state, had an obnoxious protest (not as bad as the one in the article, but it wasn't entirely peaceful either.)

I'm so tired of both extremes -- they both seem to make fools of themselves and stir up controversy rather than get to the base of the issue at hand. You can totally be for the unborn's right to life and a woman's right to choose, but neither sides (for the most part) want to make that connection.

I find it especially ironic that the idiots at this protest threw condoms. It would make so much more sense to invest that time and money into helping educate and promote contraceptive use rather than make a big ordeal about access to late term abortions.

puppetmaster
07-15-2013, 08:46 AM
And look at that tripe from Wesley! "Onan's sin was because he married the widow like the law required, therefore masturbation eeevil." seriously WTF is that? There is so much wrong with that I can hardly begin.

First the requirement had nothing to do with marrying, but producing an heir, so that was just made up. second, it's like he stops and goes to a wholly different topic as if there was some logical progression.

Congratulations Eduardo, you just convinced me that John Wesley was a functional moron. :-/

Well then I guess I just have a different view of what is right and wrong. I think having sex will your brothers widow is wrong offspring or no offspring.

GunnyFreedom
07-15-2013, 04:58 PM
Well then I guess I just have a different view of what is right and wrong. I think having sex will your brothers widow is wrong offspring or no offspring.


As wrong as leaving a poor widow destitute and childless at a time when bearing children was literally everything? We are talking about the difference between living in peace with the estate your dead husband provided vs lacking any heir and ending basically homeless and on the street. We don't consider heirs and lineage today they way they did 1000-5000 years ago. To me the worse wrong is to coldly put your brother's widow homeless and on the street because you don't really care if she lives or dies, but hey, maybe that's just me. You can't judge the culture of society 4000 years ago by the shape of society's culture today.

paulbot24
07-15-2013, 07:31 PM
These women shouldn't have anything to worry about when it comes to anything in their vaginas.....real men....Jesus.....you name it.