Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

MO Rep. Stacey Newman Proposes Bill to Restrict Vasectomies
RFT ^ | March 2, 2012 | Paul Friswold

Posted on 03/02/2012 11:42:42 AM PST by NYer

Rep Stacey Newman.jpg
Representative Stacey Newman.
​Well, well, well. The birth control debate has finally come to our swimsuit areas, gentlemen. Yesterday Missouri State Representative Stacey Newman (D-St. Louis County) filed HB1853, which would only allow a man to have a vasectomy when doing so would protect him from serious injury or prevent his death.

Ah, the legislation's on the other set of genitalia now.
Rep. Newman -- whom I'd like to nominate for Hero Squad right here and now -- has been frustrated with the recent political debates over birth control access and reproductive health. The legislation is her pointed way of combating the idea that family planning is something only women have to worry about.

If passed, HB1853 will insure that vasectomies will only be performed in medical facilities licensed by the Department of Health and Senior Services, such as a hospital, ambulatory surgery center or similarly designated health facility. Vasectomies will be legal and safe, and the back-alley ballsnipper that so many indigent men are forced to seek out when they want to get their junk switched off will become a thing of the past. For too long, men have butchered themselves using weed-whackers, small chainsaws and footballs to the groin so that they could no longer father children they didn't want to be a father to. HB1853 will bring us to a more enlightened age.

Also, it could conceivably cause one of those right-wing bible-fondlers who are so certain that they have the authority to dictate what women can do with their bodies to choke on both indignation and irony. Bitter, bitter irony.

Rep. Stacey Newman, you got a great big pair of brass balls. Never change.




TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; US: Missouri
KEYWORDS: democrat; newman; vasectomy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-76 next last

1 posted on 03/02/2012 11:42:50 AM PST by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NYer

This is beyond stupid.


2 posted on 03/02/2012 11:45:24 AM PST by Clock King (Ellisworth Toohey was right: My head's gonna explode.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Another nut liberal confusing the issue, ...they never stop. I think all women should be able to get a hysterectomy whenever they want.


3 posted on 03/02/2012 11:46:34 AM PST by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Incredibly stupid.


4 posted on 03/02/2012 11:46:34 AM PST by xjcsa (Ridiculing the ridiculous since the day I was born.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

It makes sense from a liberal perspective. If a guy has a vasectomy, they loose the opportunity to kill several a live babies.


5 posted on 03/02/2012 11:46:34 AM PST by ImJustAnotherOkie (zerogottago)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Subheadline should be “Attempt to Restrict Reproductive Rights”

Keep your hands off my body, men cry out!!


6 posted on 03/02/2012 11:50:20 AM PST by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clock King

If the government doesn’t force everybody else to pay for something you want, it’s the same thing as banning it. That’s what this dumb ditz seems to be claiming.

Where do they come up with these stupid people?


7 posted on 03/02/2012 11:51:13 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Absolutely. To be consistent, she should introduce a bill that says that employer policies are not required to cover vasectomies. I submit that “right” already exists and I support it.


8 posted on 03/02/2012 11:54:34 AM PST by TN4Liberty (My tagline disappeared so this is my new one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Clock King

I understand she is trying to make a political point here, but this is NOT analogous to anything relating to abortion. This only plays to the hard core members of the choir. She is looking very stupid.

Now, if she wanted to FORCE insurance providers to pay for vasectomies, she’d be doing something I would be strongly against.


9 posted on 03/02/2012 11:57:49 AM PST by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pallis

Also, it could conceivably cause one of those right-wing bible-fondlers who are so certain that they have the authority to dictate what women can do with their bodies to choke on both indignation and irony. Bitter, bitter irony.

I think Obama is the one dictating at the moment. He is dictating that I pay for something that is already universally available and that people choose to use for themselves. When will these women wake up and recognize the sexual slavery they have placed themselves in? Answer: Apparently not anytime soon.


10 posted on 03/02/2012 11:59:49 AM PST by taterjay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

The GOP is allowing it to be framed that way.

It would be like saying the state has to provide me with a gun because it is my right to own one.


11 posted on 03/02/2012 11:59:55 AM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Sharia law prohibits Vasectomies.

The woman’s a tool.


12 posted on 03/02/2012 12:00:18 PM PST by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NYer
So if you / the government do not buy it for me = banning me from buying it for myself?

These people can not seem wipe the own ass!!!

(after all you / the government did not buy them toilet paper)

13 posted on 03/02/2012 12:00:39 PM PST by tophat9000 (American is Barack Oaken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
So if you / the government do not buy it for me = banning me from buying it for myself?

These people can not seem to wipe the own ass!!!

(after all you / the government did not buy them toilet paper)

14 posted on 03/02/2012 12:01:16 PM PST by tophat9000 (American is Barack Oaken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redgolum
The GOP is allowing it to be framed that way.

They are allowing it since the GOP-E wants to damage the social conservatives in the GOP.

15 posted on 03/02/2012 12:04:11 PM PST by kosciusko51 (Enough of "Who is John Galt?" Who is Patrick Henry?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NYer
But having your tubes tied will have no restrictions.

Our long national nightmare goes on and on.

16 posted on 03/02/2012 12:04:20 PM PST by AU72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

When men carry live babies in their belly come back Stacey.


17 posted on 03/02/2012 12:07:40 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Sometimes progressives find their scripture in the penumbra of sacred bathroom stall writings (Tzar))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clock King
Have any men actually asked for the Catholic Church to pick up the tab for their snip-snip surgery?

Has any government official ordered it? Or tried to paint it as a men's right issue?

18 posted on 03/02/2012 12:12:27 PM PST by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer

OK, go ahead. The Catholic Hospitals will just object to this procedure as well, basically proving the point it is about Religious Freedom and not about access to birth control.


19 posted on 03/02/2012 12:24:06 PM PST by frogjerk (OBAMA NOV 2012 = HORSEMEAT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Remember, this Paul Friswold votes


20 posted on 03/02/2012 12:26:21 PM PST by LMAO ("Begging hands and Bleeding hearts will only cry out for more"...Anthem from Rush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Vasectomies will be legal and safe, and the back-alley ballsnipper that so many indigent men are forced to seek out when they want to get their junk switched off will become a thing of the past. For too long, men have butchered themselves using weed-whackers, small chainsaws and footballs to the groin so that they could no longer father children they didn't want to be a father to. HB1853 will bring us to a more enlightened age.

You know you're an idiot when your irony is lost even on yourself.

21 posted on 03/02/2012 12:27:57 PM PST by VeniVidiVici
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pallis

Perfect response.


22 posted on 03/02/2012 12:37:45 PM PST by Hostage (The revolution needs a spark. The Constitution is dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: redgolum

Brilliant! That should be the companion bill to this dingbat’s bill banning vasectomies.

The government is required to buy guns for every citizen of the USA because failure to do so would be a violation of the 2nd Amendment. Or maybe just to make it sting a little more, all members of anti-gun lobby groups are required to pay for guns for everybody. Or maybe we could compromise and just require them to buy gun insurance from, say, Remington, and then Remington would provide the guns directly instead of the anti-gun group having to be tainted by providing the guns...

Who can we get to put this as a companion to her bill, or who will amend it to add that measure as well?


23 posted on 03/02/2012 1:07:32 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I was telling folks on another thread, that I have a male family member that has three kids, and doesn’t plan on having more. He and his wife have agreed he will get an vasectomy.

He approached his physician to get one, and was told he needed his wife’s sign-off on it.

This bitch Newman doesn’t know what the hell she’s talking about. She thinks women have it bad in our nation? what a clueless skank.


24 posted on 03/02/2012 1:34:33 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Abortion? No. Gov't heath care? No. Gore on warming? No. McCain on immigration? No.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

To be parallel she should be trying to ban PUBLIC SUBSIDY of vasectomies. Any guy who can pony up the dough or who has a private plan covering it, is physically able to get one.


25 posted on 03/02/2012 3:19:12 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Sometimes progressives find their scripture in the penumbra of sacred bathroom stall writings (Tzar))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

I don’t think the doctor needs that according to any regulation, but he is trying to keep from getting sued by an angry wife who claimed she wanted kids but her hubby went off on the sneak and had a semi-permanent sterilization done. (It’s possible to rejoin vasectomies, but success rates are far from total.)


26 posted on 03/02/2012 3:21:31 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Sometimes progressives find their scripture in the penumbra of sacred bathroom stall writings (Tzar))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

Whichever the case, and you may be right, if a physician said that to me, I would stand up, walk out of that office, and return the next morning bright and early with an attorney of my own, and ask that Doctor if he would care to repeat what he said the day before.

Call me whatever you want, a statement like that from a physician is a violation of a man’s civil rights.

Sure enough I could go to another physician, but along would come another guy, and the physician would do the same thing.

This would be a great test case, and put that to bed for all time.

When my wife gets sign off on my carcass, it’s going to be room temperature, and not a damned second before.


27 posted on 03/02/2012 3:50:36 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Abortion? No. Gov't heath care? No. Gore on warming? No. McCain on immigration? No.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

Have Catholics objected to providing vasectomies as well as other forms of contraceptives? If this gal is trying to claim that Catholics just have it in for contraceptives that women use, she’s totally nuts. As far as I know, the Catholic Church wants to be free to follow their own belief, which prohibits all birth control except natural family planning - which, incidentally, is just as much a burden on the husband as on the wife. It is a mutually-shared responsibility.

So if this gal is claiming sexism by Catholics, she’s nuts.

But then, it seems like she’s really convoluting everything. This is about whether the government can force non-Muslim organizations to pay for birth control and abortions, while not requiring the same thing of Muslims who claim that any insurance at all is gambling. And she’s trying to make it equivalent to the government saying no guy can ever get a vasectomy.

There are more leaps in that logic than in a whole rendition of “Swan Lake”. lol. But she apparently hasn’t figured that out yet.


28 posted on 03/02/2012 3:56:38 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Don’t blow your top but what the doctor is asking is in fact biblical. 1 Corinthians, the wife has authority over the body of the husband and vice versa. Whether this can be abrogated by certain sins isn’t discussed, but asking about the marital situation is what any ethical doctor would do. For you to be an @$$h0l3 about it is unfitting. Just go see another doctor.


29 posted on 03/02/2012 9:09:14 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Sometimes progressives find their scripture in the penumbra of sacred bathroom stall writings (Tzar))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Pretty sure that Catholics would frown on that as a sin, but they are not asking government to “ban” it at all. That would be unsuitable for a country that isn’t all Catholic.


30 posted on 03/02/2012 9:10:44 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Sometimes progressives find their scripture in the penumbra of sacred bathroom stall writings (Tzar))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: NYer

No Reproductive Justice for men?
Someone call Slut Fluke!


31 posted on 03/02/2012 9:15:31 PM PST by Protect the Bill of Rights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

I’m not going to blow my top. It’s my body. End of story!

Do you think a doctor is going to demand sign off from the boy-friend or husband if a woman wants an abortion, even though there’s a life involved? Not a chance!

Why the (far in excess of a) double standard?


32 posted on 03/03/2012 10:24:49 AM PST by DoughtyOne (Abortion? No. Gov't heath care? No. Gore on warming? No. McCain on immigration? No.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

It’s God’s body, he lent it to you. TRUE END OF STORY!


33 posted on 03/03/2012 12:39:53 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Sometimes progressives find their scripture in the penumbra of sacred bathroom stall writings (Tzar))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

Then brother, I suggest you never have heart surgery. No heart bypass for you...


34 posted on 03/04/2012 9:23:01 AM PST by DoughtyOne (Abortion? No. Gov't heath care? No. Gore on warming? No. McCain on immigration? No.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

What sort of snide remark this is, I do not know.


35 posted on 03/04/2012 1:45:00 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Sometimes progressives find their scripture in the penumbra of sacred bathroom stall writings (Tzar))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

I think I see the reason for the snide remark, and it’s an invalid reason, especially if you subscribe to a Catholic model of sexual morality. (I don’t, but I had understood that you did, and unless you’re purposely doubting their teachings you ought to abide by them.) Doing something to impair personal fertility is a well known no-no under that big tent. Surgical repairs to body functions are not no-nos.


36 posted on 03/04/2012 2:02:38 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Sometimes progressives find their scripture in the penumbra of sacred bathroom stall writings (Tzar))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

I’m not Catholic, and I don’t subscribe to the idea that having a vasectomy is a sin. So one sort of surgical remedy weighs the same as any other to me.

When a couple has reached the number of children they can support reasonably, and do not wish to bring more children into the world, I view it as a responsible mature decision to either have the husband get a vasectomy or the wife to get her tubes tied.

You may have determined that I am a Catholic, because I will enter threads about government negetivism against it, and address it for what it is.

Personally, I don’t look upon Catholicism favorably, but it’s not my duty to frequent Free Republic threads saying so. I do view an attack on one religion, to be an attack on all religions, and I won’t stand for it.

Watching the Left in the U. S. sing the song of Separation of Church and State non-stop when it comes to trappings of Christianity in our schools, then claim the government has every right to dictate to religions what their dogma will be, is totally unacceptable, and I’ll step in to defend any church on the wrong end of government tyranny.


37 posted on 03/04/2012 5:25:21 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Abortion? No. Gov't heath care? No. Gore on warming? No. McCain on immigration? No.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

My bad for the misidentification.

Anyhow, it still seems... unnatural. It would be like having your coronary arteries plugged instead of getting a bypass.

And even under a looser evangelical standard, if you’re married and there is no biblical reason to regard the marriage as dissolved, to do this without the wife’s agreement would also seem, well, against the nature of marriage. I could not countenance anything so crass or defiant before God as to carry out your “bright and early” scenario.


38 posted on 03/04/2012 5:31:00 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Sometimes progressives find their scripture in the penumbra of sacred bathroom stall writings (Tzar))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

We probably agree on far too many things for this disagreement to be taken as a bellweather token of the compatability concerning our overall outlook on things.

Like you, I don’t think a man should have a vasectomy without agreement from his spouse, but limiting his ability to have one on the signed permission of his wife is ridiculous. Once again I must remind you that no man will ever get sign-off rights when a viable life exists and the female desires an abortion.

I also note the general default position when it comes to the custody of children upon divorce. Unless the guy is financially ably to spend tens of thousands of dollars, he has very little chance of shared custody.

I think it is also instructional to take note that I as a husband can’t even have access to information on credit accounts my wife may have, even though if something happens to her, I will immediately become responsible for paying off the debt.

I see these as glaring inequities in the rights of men, even though the last one probably does go both ways. It’s still an untenable situation.


39 posted on 03/05/2012 5:27:46 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Abortion? No. Gov't heath care? No. Gore on warming? No. McCain on immigration? No.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

What bugs me most is the idea of doing one wrong thing as a protest of another arguably wrong thing.

It sounds like the protocol of that particular physician’s practice was probably put in place (peter piper picked a peck of pickled peppers too) in order to satisfy the doctor that the wife’s assent isn’t just a whim. That this is nothing something forced upon his practice by the government. I say fine for the physician for being so ethical about it, and this does not stop other physicians from having looser policies. You don’t know what this physician thinks about spousal rights. It might be that if he were a gynecologist he’d also want the consent of a husband of a married woman in order to tie her tubes if it was not an emergency.


40 posted on 03/05/2012 6:26:20 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Sometimes progressives find their scripture in the penumbra of sacred bathroom stall writings (Tzar))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
What bugs me most is the idea of doing one wrong thing as a protest of another arguably wrong thing.

Taking a life is wrong.  Getting a vasectomy is not wrong.  They ARE NOT equitable.  My example what to highlight the absurdity of your position.

You are taking a medical decision and turning it into a political decision.

It sounds like the protocol of that particular physician’s practice was probably put in place (peter piper picked a peck of pickled peppers too) in order to satisfy the doctor that the wife’s assent isn’t just a whim.

Listen closely bud, you being of sound mind do not have to get anyone else's sign off to obtain medical care.  Anything to the contrary is as unethical as it can possibly be.

Under today's HICVA guidelines, your medical care isn't only personal, the physician can't even give the information to your spouse if you tell him not to.  Information concerning your body is owned by you and you alone.  A violation of this confidence is not only grounds for dismissal, it's grounds for suspension losing your medical license, and actionable in a court of law.


That this is nothing something forced upon his practice by the government.  I'm rather certain you are right here, because this goes against current government guidelines.

I say fine for the physician for being so ethical about it, and this does not stop other physicians from having looser policies.  What is ethical about a physical telling you you can't get medical services without another human being's permission?  You have seriously convoluted what is ethical with regard to medical care.

You don’t know what this physician thinks about spousal rights. It might be that if he were a gynecologist he’d also want the consent of a husband of a married woman in order to tie her tubes if it was not an emergency.


You are confusing the morality of being open and honest with your spouse, with some fantasy mindest that says a physician is bound to be the arbiter of medical permissions by spouses.  You're living in the land of make believe here.  I may not want my wife to get her tubes tied, but ultimately it's her body and since I don't get sign off on it, it's none of my damned business.  If you don't have a better relationship than this, it's the least of your problems.

If your mindset is reasoned then a spouse has sign-off on you getting heart surgery, liver surgery, an apendectomy, or any other care.

Example:  You're heart is not getting enough oxygen supply.  You need a heart bypass, and if you don't get it, you'll probably die in a short period of time.  Your wife has a not reasonable fear that you will not survive your surgery.  She doesn't want to lose you, so she doesn't want you to take the chance.  Your mindset is that she can deny you that right.  TOTALLY WRONG!

Not you or anyone else has the right to determine what I as a person opt to have done medically.  You don't have the right to classify certain things in a different category, that must be signed off on by a person's spouse.   You may wish you did, but that is merely make believe.  Any phsycian that tries to deny you medical care based on your spouse having to know or sign off, i2 way over the line with regard to ethics.


41 posted on 03/05/2012 7:58:31 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Abortion? No. Gov't heath care? No. Gore on warming? No. McCain on immigration? No.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

God has the right to say this, and I believe He has said it in 1 Corinthians. Argue with God and try to shoot Him all you want. I am just the messenger.


42 posted on 03/06/2012 5:34:44 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Sometimes progressives find their scripture in the penumbra of sacred bathroom stall writings (Tzar))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

First Corinthians has 16 chapters and hundreds of verses.

If you would like to point to one or perhaps a few verses to make your case, I would be happy to look at it/them.

I’m not exactly sure why you object to a vasectomy so much. Is it better to expose your wife to taking birth control pills for decades? Is it reasoned to think adults in a faithful marriage should have to use condoms for decades?

Perhaps you have good reason to encourage one of these things. I can’t possibly see what it would be, but I don’t have a problem with you living your life as you see fit. I just don’t think you should be condemning others for not agreeing with you.

And by going so far as to quote Bible verses in your effort to do so, I think you’re approaching the absurd.

I’m not here to take you, your church, or any religion to task. I have studied the Bible plenty in my life, and I have never seen grounds to buttress what you seem to be arguing for here.

I would encourage you to live your life according to your beliefs, and let others do the same.


43 posted on 03/06/2012 11:12:21 AM PST by DoughtyOne (Abortion? No. Gov't heath care? No. Gore on warming? No. McCain on immigration? No.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

I don’t see why you get all bent out of shape over a Christian doctor who takes the admonition that in a marriage the woman has authority over the man’s body and vice versa (use a concordance to locate it in 1 Cor), so seriously that he wants to see the spouse grant their OK in writing for a sterilization procedure. This is his religious conscience right and you would be a big doofus oaf shaking your fist in God’s face with your little “bright and early” trick.


44 posted on 03/06/2012 12:37:15 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Sometimes progressives find their scripture in the penumbra of sacred bathroom stall writings (Tzar))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
There is a simple test to figure out if your literal interpretation means what you think it does.

It is your stated position that a spouse should have the final say over what their spouse can do with their body.

If she has ultimate say regarding what you can do with your own body, then she has it both ways.  She can tell you what you can't do.  She can also tell you what you have to do with your body.

She could actually demand you have a vasectomy, and the good Christian doctor could not object.

"Here honey, I made an appointment for you with your doctor tomorrow morning at 9:00am.  Thank God we have a Christian doctor who understands that I call the shots concerning your body.  I called last week and told your boss you needed the day off too.  You're all set."

"Set for what?"

"Oh, just show up.  It'll be a great big surprise.  You're going to love it."

Do you have any idea what you would be a party to signing off on here, the spouse that was about to sue for divorce, and wanted to screw over her spouse in every way possible?

FAIL!  My God would not sign off on this.  Yours might.



45 posted on 03/06/2012 6:37:12 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Abortion? No. Gov't heath care? No. Gore on warming? No. McCain on immigration? No.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

This is called a strawman argument on your part.


46 posted on 03/06/2012 7:40:41 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Sometimes progressives find their scripture in the penumbra of sacred bathroom stall writings (Tzar))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

(And biblically ignorant on your part, too.)


47 posted on 03/06/2012 7:41:33 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Sometimes progressives find their scripture in the penumbra of sacred bathroom stall writings (Tzar))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

It’s called reality. You can’t argue one thing without arguing the other. Not good.


48 posted on 03/06/2012 7:42:57 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Abortion? No. Gov't heath care? No. Gore on warming? No. McCain on immigration? No.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

And this from the guy that can’t even find his own texts, in a discussion on a tenet of religion he wants to push.

As a fellow Christian, I would like to ask you to simply agree to disagree here.

I don’t dislike you. I don’t really want to continue to disagree with you on this matter in public.

I accept that you believe what you are advocating, and that’s fine with me. I’m not here to damn you at all.


49 posted on 03/06/2012 7:46:54 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Abortion? No. Gov't heath care? No. Gore on warming? No. McCain on immigration? No.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Not when you keep spouting lies about me and (worse) about God.


50 posted on 03/06/2012 7:49:24 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Sometimes progressives find their scripture in the penumbra of sacred bathroom stall writings (Tzar))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-76 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson