On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 11:35:19 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 08:26:54 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 23:01:06 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 13:25:40 -0500, Hank wrote:


The women who take advantage of birth control, whether self paid or from
some government giveaway, aren't the breeding factories that train
their offspring to game the system and generally keep an undesireable
element growing and multiplying.

That is a bit harsher than what I said because these girls usually did
not plan on being pregnant (breeding factories) but once they are they
are doomed to a life of poverty and public assistance about 99,99% of
the time, particularly if the baby daddy is in the wind, as is usually
the case.
You all know I am a cheap *******
Getting this girl "un****ed" and back in school is the cheapest thing
we can do. It is also best for her, the baby she didn't have and the
rest of society.
Once she gets in a stable place, with a hubby and job skills she can
put the dice back in the cup and throw the family dice again

Free morning after pills.
OK but free Norplant would be more effective.

I would make it a recommendation if not a requirement for anyone on
public assistance or drug treatment.

Merina intra-uterine device. Lasts for years.

http://www.mirena-us.com/

On 2/3/2014 11:59 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 11:47:27 -0500, KC wrote:

On 2/3/2014 11:24 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 05:21:38 -0500, KC wrote:

On 2/2/2014 10:39 PM, wrote:

I am saying you can and they do not have to include church dogma.
I have no problem with religious organizations denying these services
in their hospitals and as employers but I don't want them imposing it
on everyone else through legislation.


Now you are starting to sound like harry.... I don't see the little nuns
trying to push their agenda on anybody else, they just don't want to be
covered or charged for abortions....

Isn't that what I just said?


I was talking about the "imposing" part.. Imposing what, and the same
question we don't bother asking him, show me?

When these groups push legislation that makes everyone follow their
pro life policies it "imposing".


So, asking for a reasonable time for a mom to decide is "imposing"? Is
that what you are talking about?

On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 11:59:22 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 11:47:27 -0500, KC wrote:

On 2/3/2014 11:24 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 05:21:38 -0500, KC wrote:

On 2/2/2014 10:39 PM, wrote:

I am saying you can and they do not have to include church dogma.
I have no problem with religious organizations denying these services
in their hospitals and as employers but I don't want them imposing it
on everyone else through legislation.


Now you are starting to sound like harry.... I don't see the little nuns
trying to push their agenda on anybody else, they just don't want to be
covered or charged for abortions....

Isn't that what I just said?


I was talking about the "imposing" part.. Imposing what, and the same
question we don't bother asking him, show me?

When these groups push legislation that makes everyone follow their
pro life policies it "imposing".

Depends on your point of view. Put yourself in the viable infant's place.

On 2/3/2014 11:30 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 05:23:58 -0500, KC wrote:

On 2/2/2014 10:53 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 13:11:27 -0500, KC wrote:

Some of us just see a viable human being and
want to have a discussion as to when it's ok to kill that person...

You have no problem when they are 15 and just shot a cop.
I am just nipping it in the bud.


Wth does that have to do with anything?

If you look at who is in prisons, the majority came from families that
had an unmarried teenaged mom who was in the welfare system her whole
life.
If they aborted that first baby and got the girl back in school, there
is a far better chance she could have a productive life and not as
many criminal kids.



That's not the problem. The problem is the number of welfare mothers
motivated to have more and more kids because they generate additional
welfare payment amounts. The boyfriend, husband or daddy is nowhere to
be found typically.

About half the states in the country have passed family cap laws that
limit the number of kids that will generate additional welfare payments.
They are still qualified for Medicaid and additional food stamps but not
for outright cash payments for kids that number above the cap.

On 2/3/14, 12:47 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 11:35:19 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 08:26:54 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 23:01:06 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 13:25:40 -0500, Hank wrote:


The women who take advantage of birth control, whether self paid or from
some government giveaway, aren't the breeding factories that train
their offspring to game the system and generally keep an undesireable
element growing and multiplying.

That is a bit harsher than what I said because these girls usually did
not plan on being pregnant (breeding factories) but once they are they
are doomed to a life of poverty and public assistance about 99,99% of
the time, particularly if the baby daddy is in the wind, as is usually
the case.
You all know I am a cheap *******
Getting this girl "un****ed" and back in school is the cheapest thing
we can do. It is also best for her, the baby she didn't have and the
rest of society.
Once she gets in a stable place, with a hubby and job skills she can
put the dice back in the cup and throw the family dice again

Free morning after pills.
OK but free Norplant would be more effective.

I would make it a recommendation if not a requirement for anyone on
public assistance or drug treatment.

Merina intra-uterine device. Lasts for years.

http://www.mirena-us.com/


And results in hundreds of lawsuits for uterine perforations,
infections, scarring, organ damage or other injuries.

Are you a shareholder?

--
There’s no point crying over spilled 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol.

On 2/3/14, 12:48 PM, KC wrote:
On 2/3/2014 11:59 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 11:47:27 -0500, KC wrote:

On 2/3/2014 11:24 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 05:21:38 -0500, KC wrote:

On 2/2/2014 10:39 PM, wrote:

I am saying you can and they do not have to include church dogma.
I have no problem with religious organizations denying these services
in their hospitals and as employers but I don't want them imposing it
on everyone else through legislation.


Now you are starting to sound like harry.... I don't see the little
nuns
trying to push their agenda on anybody else, they just don't want
to be
covered or charged for abortions....

Isn't that what I just said?


I was talking about the "imposing" part.. Imposing what, and the same
question we don't bother asking him, show me?

When these groups push legislation that makes everyone follow their
pro life policies it "imposing".


So, asking for a reasonable time for a mom to decide is "imposing"? Is
that what you are talking about?


You mean of course time for persons other than the expectant woman to
pressure her to continue the pregnancy,

--
There’s no point crying over spilled 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol.

On 2/3/14, 12:50 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 11:59:22 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 11:47:27 -0500, KC wrote:

On 2/3/2014 11:24 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 05:21:38 -0500, KC wrote:

On 2/2/2014 10:39 PM, wrote:

I am saying you can and they do not have to include church dogma.
I have no problem with religious organizations denying these services
in their hospitals and as employers but I don't want them imposing it
on everyone else through legislation.


Now you are starting to sound like harry.... I don't see the little nuns
trying to push their agenda on anybody else, they just don't want to be
covered or charged for abortions....

Isn't that what I just said?


I was talking about the "imposing" part.. Imposing what, and the same
question we don't bother asking him, show me?

When these groups push legislation that makes everyone follow their
pro life policies it "imposing".

Depends on your point of view. Put yourself in the viable infant's place.


An infant is a person who has been born.

--
There’s no point crying over spilled 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol.

On 2/3/14, 2:32 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 12:08:52 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

And tea party types and ultra conservatives.

I don't think they are a big part of the unwed welfare mother problem.


Really? From what I have seen of tea party types at DC assemblies, I
doubt they would know how to put on a condom. And most welfare
recipients are white.

I doubt those tea party people are on welfare


How would you know?

--
There’s no point crying over spilled 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol.

On 2/3/2014 2:40 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/3/14, 2:32 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 12:08:52 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

And tea party types and ultra conservatives.

I don't think they are a big part of the unwed welfare mother problem.


Really? From what I have seen of tea party types at DC assemblies, I
doubt they would know how to put on a condom. And most welfare
recipients are white.

I doubt those tea party people are on welfare


How would you know?

To quote the distinguished lady from Arkansas "who cares"

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 13:36:48 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/3/2014 11:30 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 05:23:58 -0500, KC wrote:

On 2/2/2014 10:53 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 13:11:27 -0500, KC wrote:

Some of us just see a viable human being and
want to have a discussion as to when it's ok to kill that person...

You have no problem when they are 15 and just shot a cop.
I am just nipping it in the bud.


Wth does that have to do with anything?

If you look at who is in prisons, the majority came from families that
had an unmarried teenaged mom who was in the welfare system her whole
life.
If they aborted that first baby and got the girl back in school, there
is a far better chance she could have a productive life and not as
many criminal kids.



That's not the problem. The problem is the number of welfare mothers
motivated to have more and more kids because they generate additional
welfare payment amounts. The boyfriend, husband or daddy is nowhere to
be found typically.

About half the states in the country have passed family cap laws that
limit the number of kids that will generate additional welfare payments.
They are still qualified for Medicaid and additional food stamps but not
for outright cash payments for kids that number above the cap.


You should pluralize the 'boyfriends, husbands, or daddys'. Actually, you could probably leave
'husbands' out of the mix. In DC 80% of the newborns are to unwed mothers.