Killing children to protect children..makes sense?

Description of your first forum.

Killing children to protect children..makes sense?

Post by K?i-L » Sun, 26 Nov 2006 01:22:14



    *** was supposed to alleviate is that of battered children.
The theory was that unwanted children were abused, and preventing their
birth would end the abuse. Facts disprove the theory. Child battering
has greatly increased, as the following press report discloses:
"Looser *** laws do not result in fewer battered children-a
five-year study by Dr. Edward Lenoski, professor of pediatrics at the
University of Southern California found that following the passage of
'*** on demand', cruel infanticide and child battering
increased three-fold-a logical result of the concept that 'life is
cheap.'" Instead of remedying the battering of children, ***
has added to this the battering of millions of babies in the womb.
 
 
 

Killing children to protect children..makes sense?

Post by L. Logann Jr » Sun, 26 Nov 2006 02:33:12


NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.248.205.113 = Antonio L Santana = Jabriol

Please do not feed the TROLL!

Thank you



Quote:
>    *** was supposed to alleviate is that of battered children.
> The theory was that unwanted children were abused, and preventing their
> birth would end the abuse. Facts disprove the theory. Child battering

<snip plagerized material>
 
 
 

Killing children to protect children..makes sense?

Post by Ray Fisch » Sun, 26 Nov 2006 04:33:10


Quote:

>    *** was supposed to alleviate is that of battered children.

No it isn't.

--
Ray Fischer        

 
 
 

Killing children to protect children..makes sense?

Post by K?i-L » Sun, 26 Nov 2006 16:52:46


Quote:



> The people of rec.ponds thank you for not checking the newsgroup line and
> cross-posting jabriol's off topic inane redundant bullshit thereby helping
> this well known troll destroy another newsgroup.

stalking Jabriol from group to group makes you a kook.
What going on Carol, the private pond forums don't let you spread your
anti-jw bile?