![]() |
You don't have to be really...
....stupid to live in the south, but...it helps.
Federal judge halts Mississippi abortion law TUPELO, Mississippi (Reuters) - A federal judge on Sunday temporarily blocked Mississippi from enforcing a new law that requires doctors who perform abortions at the state's sole abortion clinic to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. The state law, challenged last week by the Jackson Women's Health Organization, has threatened to make Mississippi the only U.S. state without an abortion clinic. It was set to take effect on Sunday. U.S. District Court Judge Daniel Jordan entered a temporary restraining order and set a hearing for July 11 to determine whether it should be extended. "In this case, plaintiffs have offered evidence — including quotes from significant legislative and executive officers — that the act's purpose is to eliminate abortions in Mississippi," Jordan found. "They likewise submitted evidence that no safety or health concerns motivated its passage. This evidence has not yet been rebutted." The law signed by *Republican* Governor Phil Bryant in April requires all doctors performing abortions at a Mississippi clinic to be certified in obstetrics and gynecology, as well as to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. "The federal judge's decision is disappointing, and Governor Bryant plans to work with state leaders to ensure this legislation properly takes effect as soon as possible," spokesman Mick Bullock said. The clinic challenged the new measure as unconstitutional for aiming to effectively ban abortions in Mississippi, and also was seeking more time to comply with the law. Doctors at the Jackson health clinic already are certified in obstetrics and gynecology, but have not been able to obtain privileges at any of the half dozen hospitals within a 30-minute drive from the clinic, despite trying since early May. Republican state Representative Sam Mims, who sponsored the measure, said the law aims to protect women. POLITICAL STRATEGY? Clinic owner Dianze Derzis called it a political strategy to ban abortion in Mississippi without having to challenge Roe V. Wade. "It isn't about anything but putting that clinic out of business," Derzis told Reuters. The lawsuit, which was filed on behalf of the clinic by the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights, cited several instances in which state lawmakers publicly voiced hope the law would make Mississippi abortion-free. State health department inspectors had planned to check on the clinic's compliance with the law Monday, but no inspection will take place, a department spokeswoman said. Attorneys for the state health department said in court papers the clinic had ample time in the appeals process to explore options without seeking a court injunction. But clinic attorneys said the clinic and its doctors would be putting themselves at risk by performing abortions outside the letter of the law - despite the appeals process. "Today's decision reaffirms the fundamental constitutional rights of women in Mississippi and ensures the Jackson Women's Health Organization can continue providing the critical reproductive health care that they have offered to women for the last 17 years," said Nancy Northup, president and chief executive at the Center for Reproductive Rights. Mims said he was disappointed by the injunction, "but the courts have spoken, and we'll let the legal process begin." Mississippi already has some of the country's strictest abortion laws and one of the lowest abortion rates. It also has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in the United States - more than 60 percent above the national average in 2010. The state became a battleground for reproductive rights last fall when voters weighed in on a constitutional "personhood" amendment that defined life as starting at the moment eggs are fertilized. Voters rejected the proposed amendment. Thirty-nine other states also require that OB-GYNs perform abortions, and nine others mandate hospital privileges, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit organization dedicated to sexual and reproductive rights. The Jackson Women's Health Organization has been providing services in Mississippi since 1996. The nearest clinics outside the state are in Alabama, Tennessee, Arkansas and Louisiana. - - - All part of the Republican war on women. |
You don't have to be really...
On 7/2/2012 1:14 PM, X ` Man wrote:
...stupid to live in the south, but...it helps. Federal judge halts Mississippi abortion law TUPELO, Mississippi (Reuters) - A federal judge on Sunday temporarily blocked Mississippi from enforcing a new law that requires doctors who perform abortions at the state's sole abortion clinic to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. The state law, challenged last week by the Jackson Women's Health Organization, has threatened to make Mississippi the only U.S. state without an abortion clinic. It was set to take effect on Sunday. U.S. District Court Judge Daniel Jordan entered a temporary restraining order and set a hearing for July 11 to determine whether it should be extended. "In this case, plaintiffs have offered evidence — including quotes from significant legislative and executive officers — that the act's purpose is to eliminate abortions in Mississippi," Jordan found. "They likewise submitted evidence that no safety or health concerns motivated its passage. This evidence has not yet been rebutted." The law signed by *Republican* Governor Phil Bryant in April requires all doctors performing abortions at a Mississippi clinic to be certified in obstetrics and gynecology, as well as to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. "The federal judge's decision is disappointing, and Governor Bryant plans to work with state leaders to ensure this legislation properly takes effect as soon as possible," spokesman Mick Bullock said. The clinic challenged the new measure as unconstitutional for aiming to effectively ban abortions in Mississippi, and also was seeking more time to comply with the law. Doctors at the Jackson health clinic already are certified in obstetrics and gynecology, but have not been able to obtain privileges at any of the half dozen hospitals within a 30-minute drive from the clinic, despite trying since early May. Republican state Representative Sam Mims, who sponsored the measure, said the law aims to protect women. POLITICAL STRATEGY? Clinic owner Dianze Derzis called it a political strategy to ban abortion in Mississippi without having to challenge Roe V. Wade. "It isn't about anything but putting that clinic out of business," Derzis told Reuters. The lawsuit, which was filed on behalf of the clinic by the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights, cited several instances in which state lawmakers publicly voiced hope the law would make Mississippi abortion-free. State health department inspectors had planned to check on the clinic's compliance with the law Monday, but no inspection will take place, a department spokeswoman said. Attorneys for the state health department said in court papers the clinic had ample time in the appeals process to explore options without seeking a court injunction. But clinic attorneys said the clinic and its doctors would be putting themselves at risk by performing abortions outside the letter of the law - despite the appeals process. "Today's decision reaffirms the fundamental constitutional rights of women in Mississippi and ensures the Jackson Women's Health Organization can continue providing the critical reproductive health care that they have offered to women for the last 17 years," said Nancy Northup, president and chief executive at the Center for Reproductive Rights. Mims said he was disappointed by the injunction, "but the courts have spoken, and we'll let the legal process begin." Mississippi already has some of the country's strictest abortion laws and one of the lowest abortion rates. It also has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in the United States - more than 60 percent above the national average in 2010. The state became a battleground for reproductive rights last fall when voters weighed in on a constitutional "personhood" amendment that defined life as starting at the moment eggs are fertilized. Voters rejected the proposed amendment. Thirty-nine other states also require that OB-GYNs perform abortions, and nine others mandate hospital privileges, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit organization dedicated to sexual and reproductive rights. The Jackson Women's Health Organization has been providing services in Mississippi since 1996. The nearest clinics outside the state are in Alabama, Tennessee, Arkansas and Louisiana. - - - All part of the Republican war on women. Would you allow a doctor, who doesn't have hospital privileges, reach inside your body? Didn't think so. |
You don't have to be really...
On 7/2/2012 1:35 PM, Oscar wrote:
Would you allow a doctor, who doesn't have hospital privileges, reach inside your body? Didn't think so. Abortion is one way the dems control women and of course young girls. |
You don't have to be really...
On 7/2/12 2:43 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 7/2/2012 1:35 PM, Oscar wrote: Would you allow a doctor, who doesn't have hospital privileges, reach inside your body? Didn't think so. Abortion is one way the dems control women and of course young girls. What a nitwit you are. |
You don't have to be really...
On 7/2/2012 2:53 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 7/2/12 2:43 PM, JustWait wrote: On 7/2/2012 1:35 PM, Oscar wrote: Would you allow a doctor, who doesn't have hospital privileges, reach inside your body? Didn't think so. Abortion is one way the dems control women and of course young girls. What a nitwit you are. Didn't you once say, "It's not an unborn baby, it's just a fetus". A rational person would say only a nitwit could say that. |
You don't have to be really...
|
You don't have to be really...
On 7/2/2012 3:28 PM, BAR wrote:
In article m, says... On 7/2/2012 2:53 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 7/2/12 2:43 PM, JustWait wrote: On 7/2/2012 1:35 PM, Oscar wrote: Would you allow a doctor, who doesn't have hospital privileges, reach inside your body? Didn't think so. Abortion is one way the dems control women and of course young girls. What a nitwit you are. Didn't you once say, "It's not an unborn baby, it's just a fetus". A rational person would say only a nitwit could say that. Just think how big the Democrat party would be if they hadn't killed off their potential members via a "choice." Have you ever been to a planned abortionhood clearinghouse? There is no choice... |
You don't have to be really...
On 7/2/12 3:36 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 7/2/2012 3:28 PM, BAR wrote: In article m, says... On 7/2/2012 2:53 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 7/2/12 2:43 PM, JustWait wrote: On 7/2/2012 1:35 PM, Oscar wrote: Would you allow a doctor, who doesn't have hospital privileges, reach inside your body? Didn't think so. Abortion is one way the dems control women and of course young girls. What a nitwit you are. Didn't you once say, "It's not an unborn baby, it's just a fetus". A rational person would say only a nitwit could say that. Just think how big the Democrat party would be if they hadn't killed off their potential members via a "choice." Have you ever been to a planned abortionhood clearinghouse? There is no choice... How many times have you been to a planned parenthood facility...and when? |
You don't have to be really...
On 7/2/12 3:28 PM, BAR wrote:
In article m, says... On 7/2/2012 2:53 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 7/2/12 2:43 PM, JustWait wrote: On 7/2/2012 1:35 PM, Oscar wrote: Would you allow a doctor, who doesn't have hospital privileges, reach inside your body? Didn't think so. Abortion is one way the dems control women and of course young girls. What a nitwit you are. Didn't you once say, "It's not an unborn baby, it's just a fetus". A rational person would say only a nitwit could say that. Just think how big the Democrat party would be if they hadn't killed off their potential members via a "choice." If your parents had availed themselves of the facility, they might have had a son capable of going to college. |
You don't have to be really...
On 7/2/12 5:32 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 7/2/2012 4:04 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 7/2/12 3:36 PM, JustWait wrote: On 7/2/2012 3:28 PM, BAR wrote: In article m, says... On 7/2/2012 2:53 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 7/2/12 2:43 PM, JustWait wrote: On 7/2/2012 1:35 PM, Oscar wrote: Would you allow a doctor, who doesn't have hospital privileges, reach inside your body? Didn't think so. Abortion is one way the dems control women and of course young girls. What a nitwit you are. Didn't you once say, "It's not an unborn baby, it's just a fetus". A rational person would say only a nitwit could say that. Just think how big the Democrat party would be if they hadn't killed off their potential members via a "choice." Have you ever been to a planned abortionhood clearinghouse? There is no choice... How many times have you been to a planned parenthood facility...and when? I am certainly not going to address that with a scumbag like you... I know how you use personal info and how far you will go to stalk somebody... Remember Mad cow? My guess is that you might have visited a clinic once many years ago with a pregnant girlfriend and have not a clue as to what advice is available these days. |
You don't have to be really...
|
You don't have to be really...
|
You don't have to be really...
|
You don't have to be really...
In article , says...
On 7/2/2012 3:28 PM, BAR wrote: In article m, says... On 7/2/2012 2:53 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 7/2/12 2:43 PM, JustWait wrote: On 7/2/2012 1:35 PM, Oscar wrote: Would you allow a doctor, who doesn't have hospital privileges, reach inside your body? Didn't think so. Abortion is one way the dems control women and of course young girls. What a nitwit you are. Didn't you once say, "It's not an unborn baby, it's just a fetus". A rational person would say only a nitwit could say that. Just think how big the Democrat party would be if they hadn't killed off their potential members via a "choice." Have you ever been to a planned abortionhood clearinghouse? There is no choice... Bull****. |
You don't have to be really...
On 7/3/2012 7:57 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... On 7/2/2012 3:28 PM, BAR wrote: In article m, says... On 7/2/2012 2:53 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 7/2/12 2:43 PM, JustWait wrote: On 7/2/2012 1:35 PM, Oscar wrote: Would you allow a doctor, who doesn't have hospital privileges, reach inside your body? Didn't think so. Abortion is one way the dems control women and of course young girls. What a nitwit you are. Didn't you once say, "It's not an unborn baby, it's just a fetus". A rational person would say only a nitwit could say that. Just think how big the Democrat party would be if they hadn't killed off their potential members via a "choice." Have you ever been to a planned abortionhood clearinghouse? There is no choice... Bull****. You're right. They do get to choose the coathanger. |
You don't have to be really...
On 7/3/2012 8:42 AM, Oscar wrote:
On 7/3/2012 7:57 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 7/2/2012 3:28 PM, BAR wrote: In article m, says... On 7/2/2012 2:53 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 7/2/12 2:43 PM, JustWait wrote: On 7/2/2012 1:35 PM, Oscar wrote: Would you allow a doctor, who doesn't have hospital privileges, reach inside your body? Didn't think so. Abortion is one way the dems control women and of course young girls. What a nitwit you are. Didn't you once say, "It's not an unborn baby, it's just a fetus". A rational person would say only a nitwit could say that. Just think how big the Democrat party would be if they hadn't killed off their potential members via a "choice." Have you ever been to a planned abortionhood clearinghouse? There is no choice... Bull****. You're right. They do get to choose the coathanger. They don't even talk about any options... |
You don't have to be really...
|
You don't have to be really...
On 7/3/12 8:53 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 7/3/2012 8:42 AM, Oscar wrote: On 7/3/2012 7:57 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 7/2/2012 3:28 PM, BAR wrote: In article m, says... On 7/2/2012 2:53 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 7/2/12 2:43 PM, JustWait wrote: On 7/2/2012 1:35 PM, Oscar wrote: Would you allow a doctor, who doesn't have hospital privileges, reach inside your body? Didn't think so. Abortion is one way the dems control women and of course young girls. What a nitwit you are. Didn't you once say, "It's not an unborn baby, it's just a fetus". A rational person would say only a nitwit could say that. Just think how big the Democrat party would be if they hadn't killed off their potential members via a "choice." Have you ever been to a planned abortionhood clearinghouse? There is no choice... Bull****. You're right. They do get to choose the coathanger. They don't even talk about any options... There are only two options if you are a pregnant girl... 1. Have the baby. 2. Have an abortion. At a good women's clinic, they can either provide a safe medical abortion or recommend someone outside the clinic who do the procedure. The Republican objection to abortion is not based upon morality but, rather, on attempts to control women and their bodies. |
You don't have to be really...
In article , says...
On 7/3/2012 8:42 AM, Oscar wrote: On 7/3/2012 7:57 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 7/2/2012 3:28 PM, BAR wrote: In article m, says... On 7/2/2012 2:53 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 7/2/12 2:43 PM, JustWait wrote: On 7/2/2012 1:35 PM, Oscar wrote: Would you allow a doctor, who doesn't have hospital privileges, reach inside your body? Didn't think so. Abortion is one way the dems control women and of course young girls. What a nitwit you are. Didn't you once say, "It's not an unborn baby, it's just a fetus". A rational person would say only a nitwit could say that. Just think how big the Democrat party would be if they hadn't killed off their potential members via a "choice." Have you ever been to a planned abortionhood clearinghouse? There is no choice... Bull****. You're right. They do get to choose the coathanger. They don't even talk about any options... Bull****. |
You don't have to be really...
In article , says...
On 7/3/2012 7:55 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , dump-on- says... ...stupid to live in the south, but...it helps. Federal judge halts Mississippi abortion law TUPELO, Mississippi (Reuters) - A federal judge on Sunday temporarily blocked Mississippi from enforcing a new law that requires doctors who perform abortions at the state's sole abortion clinic to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. The state law, challenged last week by the Jackson Women's Health Organization, has threatened to make Mississippi the only U.S. state without an abortion clinic. It was set to take effect on Sunday. U.S. District Court Judge Daniel Jordan entered a temporary restraining order and set a hearing for July 11 to determine whether it should be extended. "In this case, plaintiffs have offered evidence ? including quotes from significant legislative and executive officers ? that the act's purpose is to eliminate abortions in Mississippi," Jordan found. "They likewise submitted evidence that no safety or health concerns motivated its passage. This evidence has not yet been rebutted." The law signed by *Republican* Governor Phil Bryant in April requires all doctors performing abortions at a Mississippi clinic to be certified in obstetrics and gynecology, as well as to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. "The federal judge's decision is disappointing, and Governor Bryant plans to work with state leaders to ensure this legislation properly takes effect as soon as possible," spokesman Mick Bullock said. The clinic challenged the new measure as unconstitutional for aiming to effectively ban abortions in Mississippi, and also was seeking more time to comply with the law. Doctors at the Jackson health clinic already are certified in obstetrics and gynecology, but have not been able to obtain privileges at any of the half dozen hospitals within a 30-minute drive from the clinic, despite trying since early May. Republican state Representative Sam Mims, who sponsored the measure, said the law aims to protect women. POLITICAL STRATEGY? Clinic owner Dianze Derzis called it a political strategy to ban abortion in Mississippi without having to challenge Roe V. Wade. "It isn't about anything but putting that clinic out of business," Derzis told Reuters. The lawsuit, which was filed on behalf of the clinic by the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights, cited several instances in which state lawmakers publicly voiced hope the law would make Mississippi abortion-free. State health department inspectors had planned to check on the clinic's compliance with the law Monday, but no inspection will take place, a department spokeswoman said. Attorneys for the state health department said in court papers the clinic had ample time in the appeals process to explore options without seeking a court injunction. But clinic attorneys said the clinic and its doctors would be putting themselves at risk by performing abortions outside the letter of the law - despite the appeals process. "Today's decision reaffirms the fundamental constitutional rights of women in Mississippi and ensures the Jackson Women's Health Organization can continue providing the critical reproductive health care that they have offered to women for the last 17 years," said Nancy Northup, president and chief executive at the Center for Reproductive Rights. Mims said he was disappointed by the injunction, "but the courts have spoken, and we'll let the legal process begin." Mississippi already has some of the country's strictest abortion laws and one of the lowest abortion rates. It also has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in the United States - more than 60 percent above the national average in 2010. The state became a battleground for reproductive rights last fall when voters weighed in on a constitutional "personhood" amendment that defined life as starting at the moment eggs are fertilized. Voters rejected the proposed amendment. Thirty-nine other states also require that OB-GYNs perform abortions, and nine others mandate hospital privileges, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit organization dedicated to sexual and reproductive rights. The Jackson Women's Health Organization has been providing services in Mississippi since 1996. The nearest clinics outside the state are in Alabama, Tennessee, Arkansas and Louisiana. - - - All part of the Republican war on women. That's our bigot Harry for you. The democrats are waging a war on women, minorities, and Americans... How so? By giving them a choice? |
You don't have to be really...
On 7/3/2012 8:53 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 7/3/2012 8:42 AM, Oscar wrote: On 7/3/2012 7:57 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 7/2/2012 3:28 PM, BAR wrote: In article m, says... On 7/2/2012 2:53 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 7/2/12 2:43 PM, JustWait wrote: On 7/2/2012 1:35 PM, Oscar wrote: Would you allow a doctor, who doesn't have hospital privileges, reach inside your body? Didn't think so. Abortion is one way the dems control women and of course young girls. What a nitwit you are. Didn't you once say, "It's not an unborn baby, it's just a fetus". A rational person would say only a nitwit could say that. Just think how big the Democrat party would be if they hadn't killed off their potential members via a "choice." Have you ever been to a planned abortionhood clearinghouse? There is no choice... Bull****. You're right. They do get to choose the coathanger. They don't even talk about any options... They are in the business of doing abortions. They have an agenda. Rip baby rip. If a woman has doubts she should seek counseling from her doctor, clergy, family, medicaid/welfare councilor, etc. |
You don't have to be really...
"X ` Man" wrote in message m... The Republican objection to abortion is not based upon morality but, rather, on attempts to control women and their bodies. -------------------------------------------------- How about the millions of women ... Republicans and Democrats alike, who oppose abortion? Are they attempting to control women and their bodies? |
You don't have to be really...
On 7/3/12 9:47 PM, Eisboch wrote:
"X ` Man" wrote in message m... The Republican objection to abortion is not based upon morality but, rather, on attempts to control women and their bodies. -------------------------------------------------- How about the millions of women ... Republicans and Democrats alike, who oppose abortion? Are they attempting to control women and their bodies? A lot of them are. |
You don't have to be really...
|
You don't have to be really...
On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 21:47:11 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
"X ` Man" wrote in message om... The Republican objection to abortion is not based upon morality but, rather, on attempts to control women and their bodies. -------------------------------------------------- How about the millions of women ... Republicans and Democrats alike, who oppose abortion? Are they attempting to control women and their bodies? You make no distinction between those who oppose but think it's still a woman's choice and those who oppose and who'd make it illegal. The latter is a much smaller percentage than the former. |
You don't have to be really...
On 7/4/2012 1:39 PM, jps wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 21:47:11 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "X ` Man" wrote in message m... The Republican objection to abortion is not based upon morality but, rather, on attempts to control women and their bodies. -------------------------------------------------- How about the millions of women ... Republicans and Democrats alike, who oppose abortion? Are they attempting to control women and their bodies? You make no distinction between those who oppose but think it's still a woman's choice and those who oppose and who'd make it illegal. The latter is a much smaller percentage than the former. I'll get to work righaway and see if I can verify your claim. Don't wait up. |
You don't have to be really...
"jps" wrote in message ... On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 21:47:11 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "X ` Man" wrote in message om... The Republican objection to abortion is not based upon morality but, rather, on attempts to control women and their bodies. -------------------------------------------------- How about the millions of women ... Republicans and Democrats alike, who oppose abortion? Are they attempting to control women and their bodies? You make no distinction between those who oppose but think it's still a woman's choice and those who oppose and who'd make it illegal. ----------------------------------------------- Exactly my point. Neither did Harry. Eisboch |
You don't have to be really...
On 7/5/12 7:02 AM, Eisboch wrote:
"jps" wrote in message ... On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 21:47:11 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "X ` Man" wrote in message m... The Republican objection to abortion is not based upon morality but, rather, on attempts to control women and their bodies. -------------------------------------------------- How about the millions of women ... Republicans and Democrats alike, who oppose abortion? Are they attempting to control women and their bodies? You make no distinction between those who oppose but think it's still a woman's choice and those who oppose and who'd make it illegal. ----------------------------------------------- Exactly my point. Neither did Harry. Eisboch The "right to life" movement is fatally contaminated by the huge numbers of proponents who don't give a rat's ass about children born into horrific poverty, or about the hypocrisy of supporting fetuses and capital punishment, or the hypocrisy about starting wars of convenience that end up killing thousands, hundreds of thousands or even millions. I have no objection to honest people who oppose abortion on "moral grounds," but who do not try to restrict the availability of abortion to those who want one. If you don't want an abortion, don't get one. In the end, I believe the majority of those who oppose abortion are trying to control women. |
You don't have to be really...
On 7/5/2012 7:14 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 7/5/12 7:02 AM, Eisboch wrote: "jps" wrote in message ... On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 21:47:11 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "X ` Man" wrote in message m... The Republican objection to abortion is not based upon morality but, rather, on attempts to control women and their bodies. -------------------------------------------------- How about the millions of women ... Republicans and Democrats alike, who oppose abortion? Are they attempting to control women and their bodies? You make no distinction between those who oppose but think it's still a woman's choice and those who oppose and who'd make it illegal. ----------------------------------------------- Exactly my point. Neither did Harry. Eisboch The "right to life" movement is fatally contaminated by the huge numbers of proponents who don't give a rat's ass about children born into horrific poverty, or about the hypocrisy of supporting fetuses and capital punishment, or the hypocrisy about starting wars of convenience that end up killing thousands, hundreds of thousands or even millions. I have no objection to honest people who oppose abortion on "moral grounds," but who do not try to restrict the availability of abortion to those who want one. If you don't want an abortion, don't get one. In the end, I believe the majority of those who oppose abortion are trying to control women Well that's the way your mind works. It might be what you BELIEVE but it's not necessarily a fact. So please don't try to pass off what gets manipulated in your mind as fact. You insult your readers by underestimating their intelligence. |
You don't have to be really...
|
You don't have to be really...
On 7/5/2012 4:14 AM, X ` Man wrote:
In the end, I believe the majority of those who oppose abortion are trying to control women. Especially those opposing contraception education. If they truly wanted to minimize abortion... |
You don't have to be really...
On 7/6/2012 1:59 AM, thumper wrote:
On 7/5/2012 4:14 AM, X ` Man wrote: In the end, I believe the majority of those who oppose abortion are trying to control women. Especially those opposing contraception education. If they truly wanted to minimize abortion... So, because you have taken the argument to it's shallowest level, you feel you have won and there is nothing more to discuss. How typically liberal. |
You don't have to be really...
On 7/6/2012 1:59 AM, thumper wrote:
On 7/5/2012 4:14 AM, X ` Man wrote: In the end, I believe the majority of those who oppose abortion are trying to control women. Especially those opposing contraception education. If they truly wanted to minimize abortion... I'm all for the education. Especially for those who can't read or follow directions. Insert pill in mouth and swallow. It really isn't that hard. |
You don't have to be really...
|
You don't have to be really...
On 7/6/12 7:55 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... On 7/6/2012 1:59 AM, thumper wrote: On 7/5/2012 4:14 AM, X ` Man wrote: In the end, I believe the majority of those who oppose abortion are trying to control women. Especially those opposing contraception education. If they truly wanted to minimize abortion... So, because you have taken the argument to it's shallowest level, you feel you have won and there is nothing more to discuss. How typically liberal. It's been proven that abstinence doesn't work. But, you still don't want contraceptive education or abortion. You just want more of something that doesn't work. How typically conservative. D'uh. Abstinence works, dummy. What doesn't work is the typically "church moral" *abstinence edu-ma-cat-shun.* What is needed in the public schools is a comprehensive sex and relationship education program that begins, probably, in the third or fourth grade with the simple facts of life and builds progressively so that by the time kids are in the sixth or seventh grade and really curious and experimenting sexually, they know precisely how to prevent pregnancies, how to prevent transmissions of STDs, and how to get along with others. Certainly, abstinence can be part of the teaching in such a program. The reality is that most kids are going to have sex by their early teens and the best thing society can do is make sure they are equipped to handle it responsibly. I get a kick out of the religious prigs who preach the bible and against premarital sex. The bible is full of premarital sex and lust and among the very young. Read the Song of Solomon, for starters. The prigs, of course, interpret the bible to preach what they want, but what they want is not necessarily the same as what their "good book" says or means. |
You don't have to be really...
In article ,
says... On 7/6/12 7:55 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 7/6/2012 1:59 AM, thumper wrote: On 7/5/2012 4:14 AM, X ` Man wrote: In the end, I believe the majority of those who oppose abortion are trying to control women. Especially those opposing contraception education. If they truly wanted to minimize abortion... So, because you have taken the argument to it's shallowest level, you feel you have won and there is nothing more to discuss. How typically liberal. It's been proven that abstinence doesn't work. But, you still don't want contraceptive education or abortion. You just want more of something that doesn't work. How typically conservative. D'uh. Abstinence works, dummy. What doesn't work is the typically "church moral" *abstinence edu-ma-cat-shun.* What is needed in the public schools is a comprehensive sex and relationship education program that begins, probably, in the third or fourth grade with the simple facts of life and builds progressively so that by the time kids are in the sixth or seventh grade and really curious and experimenting sexually, they know precisely how to prevent pregnancies, how to prevent transmissions of STDs, and how to get along with others. Certainly, abstinence can be part of the teaching in such a program. The reality is that most kids are going to have sex by their early teens and the best thing society can do is make sure they are equipped to handle it responsibly. I get a kick out of the religious prigs who preach the bible and against premarital sex. The bible is full of premarital sex and lust and among the very young. Read the Song of Solomon, for starters. The prigs, of course, interpret the bible to preach what they want, but what they want is not necessarily the same as what their "good book" says or means. I should have said that abstinence EDUCATION doesn't work. |
You don't have to be really...
On 7/6/12 9:45 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... On 7/6/12 7:55 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 7/6/2012 1:59 AM, thumper wrote: On 7/5/2012 4:14 AM, X ` Man wrote: In the end, I believe the majority of those who oppose abortion are trying to control women. Especially those opposing contraception education. If they truly wanted to minimize abortion... So, because you have taken the argument to it's shallowest level, you feel you have won and there is nothing more to discuss. How typically liberal. It's been proven that abstinence doesn't work. But, you still don't want contraceptive education or abortion. You just want more of something that doesn't work. How typically conservative. D'uh. Abstinence works, dummy. What doesn't work is the typically "church moral" *abstinence edu-ma-cat-shun.* What is needed in the public schools is a comprehensive sex and relationship education program that begins, probably, in the third or fourth grade with the simple facts of life and builds progressively so that by the time kids are in the sixth or seventh grade and really curious and experimenting sexually, they know precisely how to prevent pregnancies, how to prevent transmissions of STDs, and how to get along with others. Certainly, abstinence can be part of the teaching in such a program. The reality is that most kids are going to have sex by their early teens and the best thing society can do is make sure they are equipped to handle it responsibly. I get a kick out of the religious prigs who preach the bible and against premarital sex. The bible is full of premarital sex and lust and among the very young. Read the Song of Solomon, for starters. The prigs, of course, interpret the bible to preach what they want, but what they want is not necessarily the same as what their "good book" says or means. I should have said that abstinence EDUCATION doesn't work. One of the many reasons why it doesn't work is that most of those who offer it up are hypocritical assholes and the kids know it. Another is that sex is fun, and if practiced voluntarily and safely between teens of approximately the same age is harmless, certainly less harmful than the mind****ing that goes on in fundie churches and schools and religiously based home schooling, for example. |
You don't have to be really...
On 7/6/2012 10:05 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 7/6/12 9:45 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 7/6/12 7:55 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 7/6/2012 1:59 AM, thumper wrote: On 7/5/2012 4:14 AM, X ` Man wrote: In the end, I believe the majority of those who oppose abortion are trying to control women. Especially those opposing contraception education. If they truly wanted to minimize abortion... So, because you have taken the argument to it's shallowest level, you feel you have won and there is nothing more to discuss. How typically liberal. It's been proven that abstinence doesn't work. But, you still don't want contraceptive education or abortion. You just want more of something that doesn't work. How typically conservative. D'uh. Abstinence works, dummy. What doesn't work is the typically "church moral" *abstinence edu-ma-cat-shun.* What is needed in the public schools is a comprehensive sex and relationship education program that begins, probably, in the third or fourth grade with the simple facts of life and builds progressively so that by the time kids are in the sixth or seventh grade and really curious and experimenting sexually, they know precisely how to prevent pregnancies, how to prevent transmissions of STDs, and how to get along with others. Certainly, abstinence can be part of the teaching in such a program. The reality is that most kids are going to have sex by their early teens and the best thing society can do is make sure they are equipped to handle it responsibly. I get a kick out of the religious prigs who preach the bible and against premarital sex. The bible is full of premarital sex and lust and among the very young. Read the Song of Solomon, for starters. The prigs, of course, interpret the bible to preach what they want, but what they want is not necessarily the same as what their "good book" says or means. I should have said that abstinence EDUCATION doesn't work. One of the many reasons why it doesn't work is that most of those who offer it up are hypocritical assholes and the kids know it. Another is that sex is fun, and if practiced voluntarily and safely between teens of approximately the same age is harmless, certainly less harmful than the mind****ing that goes on in fundie churches and schools and religiously based home schooling, for example. Gag me with a spoon. Your post was retched. No wonder folks like you are on the watch list. |
You don't have to be really...
In article , dump-on-
says... On 7/6/12 9:45 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 7/6/12 7:55 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 7/6/2012 1:59 AM, thumper wrote: On 7/5/2012 4:14 AM, X ` Man wrote: In the end, I believe the majority of those who oppose abortion are trying to control women. Especially those opposing contraception education. If they truly wanted to minimize abortion... So, because you have taken the argument to it's shallowest level, you feel you have won and there is nothing more to discuss. How typically liberal. It's been proven that abstinence doesn't work. But, you still don't want contraceptive education or abortion. You just want more of something that doesn't work. How typically conservative. D'uh. Abstinence works, dummy. What doesn't work is the typically "church moral" *abstinence edu-ma-cat-shun.* What is needed in the public schools is a comprehensive sex and relationship education program that begins, probably, in the third or fourth grade with the simple facts of life and builds progressively so that by the time kids are in the sixth or seventh grade and really curious and experimenting sexually, they know precisely how to prevent pregnancies, how to prevent transmissions of STDs, and how to get along with others. Certainly, abstinence can be part of the teaching in such a program. The reality is that most kids are going to have sex by their early teens and the best thing society can do is make sure they are equipped to handle it responsibly. I get a kick out of the religious prigs who preach the bible and against premarital sex. The bible is full of premarital sex and lust and among the very young. Read the Song of Solomon, for starters. The prigs, of course, interpret the bible to preach what they want, but what they want is not necessarily the same as what their "good book" says or means. I should have said that abstinence EDUCATION doesn't work. One of the many reasons why it doesn't work is that most of those who offer it up are hypocritical assholes and the kids know it. Another is that sex is fun, and if practiced voluntarily and safely between teens of approximately the same age is harmless, certainly less harmful than the mind****ing that goes on in fundie churches and schools and religiously based home schooling, for example. Adolescents are going to be adolescents! |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:47 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com