Pennsylvania mother who gave daughter abortion pill gets prison

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

Oh my. Excuses, excuses.

It's a press release issued by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, on behalf of them and the AMA.

It is a report of something third hand. Give me a consensus paper and then we can discuss what the majority of physicians think.


Secondly, since we are talking about context. It is disingenuous to state that ACOG represents most or even a majority of OB/GYN physicians. Certainly it is a professional and a lobbying group, but it is not the certifying organization. That is ABOG "The American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology" out of Dallas, Texas. THAT organization certifies every board certified OB/GYN in the country www.abog.org.... ACOG is a lobbying group out of Washington, D.C. m.acog.org...


You are being intentionally deceptive when you claim a D.C. lobbying group represents the opinions of America's OB/GYN physicians.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

HAHA!

Context man, context.

Why don't post the link so everyone can see what prompted that reply?

What, that you are an obsessive stalker?

That you're making stuff up.

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

HAHA!

Context man, context.

Why don't post the link so everyone can see what prompted that reply?

What, that you are an obsessive stalker?

That you're making stuff up.

Did you or did you not post those words?

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: AnteBellum
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Sorry I'm on my cell or I'd post the links but a gay couple recently did have a baby look up Thomas Beatie.

The technology is there but requires some plumbing work if you know what I mean.

Add: I'm a little confused with this one now was he a she, then became a he, then he got pregnant?
That's no big deal if true, sorry.

Thomas Beattie is transgender.

The physical body is female. He is a man in a female physical body.

He is not the only one.

Right. So "he" is not a man but a woman. No miracle of modern science there.

No, he is transgender.

He is a man in a female physical body.

NOTE: give me a break. Just came from a 6 year olds birthday party

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: AnteBellum
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Sorry I'm on my cell or I'd post the links but a gay couple recently did have a baby look up Thomas Beatie.

The technology is there but requires some plumbing work if you know what I mean.

Add: I'm a little confused with this one now was he a she, then became a he, then he got pregnant?
That's no big deal if true, sorry.

Thomas Beattie is transgender.

The physical body is female. He is a man in a female physical body.

He is not the only one.

Right. So "he" is not a man but a woman. No miracle of modern science there.

No, he is transgender.

He is a man in a female physical body.

NO, "he" has a woman's body with female parts and thus it is not unusual that "he" can carry a baby. It is not a miracle that a woman who calls herself a man can carry a child.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: AnteBellum
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Sorry I'm on my cell or I'd post the links but a gay couple recently did have a baby look up Thomas Beatie.

The technology is there but requires some plumbing work if you know what I mean.

Add: I'm a little confused with this one now was he a she, then became a he, then he got pregnant?
That's no big deal if true, sorry.

Thomas Beattie is transgender.

The physical body is female. He is a man in a female physical body.

He is not the only one.

Right. So "he" is not a man but a woman. No miracle of modern science there.

No, he is transgender.

He is a man in a female physical body.

NO, "he" has a woman's body with female parts and thus it is not unusual that "he" can carry a baby. It is not a miracle that a woman who calls herself a man can carry a child.

I'm not going to argue transgender with you.

You can choose to be ignorant.

D/P

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

HAHA!

Context man, context.

Why don't post the link so everyone can see what prompted that reply?

What, that you are an obsessive stalker?

That you're making stuff up.

Did you or did you not post those words?

These words?

What, that you are an obsessive stalker?

No, that's you and your imagination making stuff up.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: AnteBellum
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Sorry I'm on my cell or I'd post the links but a gay couple recently did have a baby look up Thomas Beatie.

The technology is there but requires some plumbing work if you know what I mean.

Add: I'm a little confused with this one now was he a she, then became a he, then he got pregnant?
That's no big deal if true, sorry.

Thomas Beattie is transgender.

The physical body is female. He is a man in a female physical body.

He is not the only one.

Right. So "he" is not a man but a woman. No miracle of modern science there.

No, he is transgender.

He is a man in a female physical body.

NO, "he" has a woman's body with female parts and thus it is not unusual that "he" can carry a baby. It is not a miracle that a woman who calls herself a man can carry a child.

I'm not going to argue transgender with you.

You can choose to be ignorant.

It has nothing to do with "ignorant" it has to do with the physical facts of the matter.

The procedure he had, sometimes called "top surgery" or "chest reconstruction" involved a double mastectomy, areolar reshaping and grafting, and contouring of the chest to effectuate a male appearance. Because he wanted to have biological children and sterilization was not a requirement to undergo a valid sex change anywhere in the United States, he kept his internal reproductive organs intact.

"He" may have had a breast job and "he" may have taken hormones for a while but "he" still had female reproductive organs: uterus, fallopian tubes, and ovaries and "he" got pregnant like many women, through artificial insemination.

"He" is not an example of a man having a baby and to say so is being intellectually dishonest.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: AnteBellum
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Sorry I'm on my cell or I'd post the links but a gay couple recently did have a baby look up Thomas Beatie.

The technology is there but requires some plumbing work if you know what I mean.

Add: I'm a little confused with this one now was he a she, then became a he, then he got pregnant?
That's no big deal if true, sorry.

Thomas Beattie is transgender.

The physical body is female. He is a man in a female physical body.

He is not the only one.

Right. So "he" is not a man but a woman. No miracle of modern science there.

No, he is transgender.

He is a man in a female physical body.

NO, "he" has a woman's body with female parts and thus it is not unusual that "he" can carry a baby. It is not a miracle that a woman who calls herself a man can carry a child.

I'm not going to argue transgender with you.

You can choose to be ignorant.

It has nothing to do with "ignorant" it has to do with the physical facts of the matter.

The procedure he had, sometimes called "top surgery" or "chest reconstruction" involved a double mastectomy, areolar reshaping and grafting, and contouring of the chest to effectuate a male appearance. Because he wanted to have biological children and sterilization was not a requirement to undergo a valid sex change anywhere in the United States, he kept his internal reproductive organs intact.

"He" may have had a breast job and "he" may have taken hormones for a while but "he" still had female reproductive organs: uterus, fallopian tubes, and ovaries and "he" got pregnant like many women, through artificial insemination.

"He" is not an example of a man having a baby and to say so is being intellectually dishonest.

Ah, again with the same level of dishonesty. Did you or did you not type:

"But, I/we are aware of your posting history in this regard. Thanks though for the heads up that we're going to need to keep a handy dandy file on you and your amazing posts! "

And did I ever say anything as obsessive and attempted intimidating as that to you?

a reply to: NavyDoc

Post the link, that'll clear everything up.

a reply to: NavyDoc

I said he was physically female.

What more needs to be said?

Do you argue just to argue?

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

If abortion was considered murder by law, then the ordeal you went through would fall under self-defense. Just because such abortions are necessary doesn't mean that anyone should be allowed to have an abortion for any reason they can come up with.

I have plenty of good reasons to kill my ex-wife, she's made my life and my kid's lives a living hell. But just because someone gets away with killing his wife that's chasing him with a butcher knife doesn't mean that I get to kill mine (not that I would want to).

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

Post the link, that'll clear everything up.

It was a yes or no question. I see you do like to squirm and be dishonest. Did you write them, yes or no?

Since the conversation was deleted due to your violation of manners. However, I did have a discussion about them with a mod. If you are going to call me a liar, do so and then let's go to the mod and ask if you did or did not type those words. Loser gets a 30 day posting ban. What do you say?

a reply to: NavyDoc

I don't recall any such post being the cause of a reply of mine to have been taken down by a MOD. Post a link to your post, to which you said I replied, and that I said such and such.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

I don't recall any such post being taken down by a MOD. Post a link to your post, to which you said I replied, and that I said such and such.

"off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift "

Can't get it back for you that way. But you are dodging and sidestepping again. Simple question: did you write them or not and if you claim not, care for me to bring the mod in question to confirm?

Are you a person of personal integrity or are you not?

N/M

a reply to: Bone75

Not the same, just not the same.

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: NavyDoc

I said he was physically female.

What more needs to be said?

Do you argue just to argue?

Apparently so. Some people refuse to allow another person to exist when it doesn't fit their pathetically small wordview.

They need to grow up and move on and either give their blessing to exist, or just go away quietly.

a reply to: NavyDoc

First you said that my comment was removed for a "Manners Violation", then you say it was removed for being "Off Topic". Are you sure you even have the right thread for said comment?

Look, if you're so sure of what I said, why don't you post your original post, to which I replied, "This and That"?

Why are you so worried about some supposed comment, that you say was removed? Are you afraid I'm keeping a data base of your posts?