From: patrick@lampasas.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: An argument for better sex ed
Organization: You can't have it.  It's ours.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 03:01:35 GMT

On Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:43:12 GMT, forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) said:

>From article by patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey):
>> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>From article by sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin):
>>In article vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>>> 
>>>>>I don't think you understand... you got YOURSELF pregnant.  
>>> 
>>>> Nice trick, Heather.
>>> 
>>> Seems to me any time a pro-lifer brings up the fact that it takes two
>>> to get pregnant, he or she gets barraged with followups and letters
>>> from lesbians espousing the "teaspoon method".
>> 
>> Is that so?  I've been here as long as you have, and strangely enough, I
>> haven't seen any such activity -- 

>We all know you're blind as a bat.  Just look at what you married.

We know you're a couple of slices of bread short of a sandwich, too.  You've
never seen any of my family.  (Man, such loving words coming from Madame
Fetus Fanatic herself...makes me glad I'm two states away, where the stench
has pretty much died out by the time it gets this far downwind from Tucson.)

>But be that as it may, I know you don't have access to my mailbox, and 
>you must have missed those followups as well.   By the way, I've been on
>the net longer than you have been.

I just don't know how I'll sleep tonight knowing that.  (Believe me, I'm
glad I *don't* have access to your mailbox -- I wouldn't want it any other
way.)

>>> Ya can't have it both ways, pro-"choicers".
>> 
>> How is pointing out the obvious idiocy of a statement made by one of your
>> fellow travelers trying to "have it both ways"?  

>Because if he'd said the opposite, that pregnancy takes 2, I guarantee that
>Garvin, or somebody of like political persuasion, would have claimed that
>_that_ statement was "idiocy".

...and in the quite likely event that no one did, you'd lie your ass off to
cover *that* little faux pas up.  You couldn't guarantee the sunrise
tomorrow, loony-tune.

>> Or are you saying you
>> really think Heather got herself pregnant?  (That *is* a neat trick, if she
>> really did that.)
>> 
>> --PLH, I don't think that's how Dale's daughter got here, though...

>Yeah.   She ain't yours.   She's another man's, a man who's been with your
>wife.   I hope it drives you crazy.

Awww...what's the matter, Ted been spending as much time away from you as
possible lately?  I wouldn't blame him, with the hateful attitude you're so
proud of.  Incidentally, Sonja is not *my* biological child -- so what?
It definitely doesn't bother her -- she considers herself to be twice
blessed, to have *two* sets of parents.  I'll be sure and tell her of this
little gem of yours when we talk to her this weekend, and all three of us
(make that five -- her other set of parents might as well be in on the joke,
too) will have a good laugh over it.

Meanwhile, keep on being the hateful, sleazy bitch you like to be in this
newsgroup -- you're doing a bang-up job of convincing people that pro-life
is a big sham.  I like it when folks like you are too damned stupid to
figure out you're doing the leg work for the *other* side...

--PLH, does anyone else get the impression that Suzanne's a couple of cans
short a six-pack?

--

Newsgroups: talk.abortion