On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 14:31:38 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 12:02:18 -0500, KC wrote:

On 2/3/2014 11:30 AM, wrote:

So, you think it's ok to premurder someone.. Sounds like a Tom Cruise
movie.... No problem, you have the right to think that as crazy as it
sounds to me. Either way, back to the point you keep avoiding.. how does
me being against killing viable humans for financial reasons, make me
only against abortion based on "religious" issues...?

I don't think a fetus is a human, particularly in the first trimester.

We make financial decisions about human life every day and I bet you
agree with most of them. Would it be worth spending an extra billion
dollars a year through some extra regulation to save one life?

I can get along with that. I can't get along with the killing of viable unborn infants.

On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 16:04:14 -0500, HanK wrote:

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"

Speaking of Arkansas, have you been in the Harrison area by any chance? Any thoughts, great places
to eat a alot, etc.?

On 2/3/14, 5:28 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 16:04:14 -0500, HanK wrote:

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"

Speaking of Arkansas, have you been in the Harrison area by any chance? Any thoughts, great places
to eat a alot, etc.?



I know where Harrison is. Drive north a half hour to Branson and you'll
find plenty of places to "eat a lot," and cheap, too. Well, most of them.

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

On 2/3/2014 2:31 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 12:02:18 -0500, KC wrote:

On 2/3/2014 11:30 AM, wrote:

So, you think it's ok to premurder someone.. Sounds like a Tom Cruise
movie.... No problem, you have the right to think that as crazy as it
sounds to me. Either way, back to the point you keep avoiding.. how does
me being against killing viable humans for financial reasons, make me
only against abortion based on "religious" issues...?

I don't think a fetus is a human, particularly in the first trimester.

We make financial decisions about human life every day and I bet you
agree with most of them. Would it be worth spending an extra billion
dollars a year through some extra regulation to save one life?


Not my problem.. you and Wayne et al seem to be saying "no other reason
but religion" for being against abortion. I say they are full of crap,
many folks just feel it's not ok to kill a viable human..

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?

No, he is talking about the law requiring a doctor or hospital to do an
abortion on demand. No matter the beliefs of the doctor or hospital!

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/

My fishing partners first child came just after pushing out birth control
ring. About 40 years ago. May be better now.

On 2/3/2014 5:54 PM, Califbill wrote:
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?

No, he is talking about the law requiring a doctor or hospital to do an
abortion on demand. No matter the beliefs of the doctor or hospital!


So, what you are saying is.... "The hospital not wanting to have imposed
on it the requirement to do abortions on demand, is somehow "imposing"
on the folks who choose to use their facility? Dumb....

On 2/3/2014 5:28 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 16:04:14 -0500, HanK wrote:

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"

Speaking of Arkansas, have you been in the Harrison area by any chance? Any thoughts, great places
to eat a alot, etc.?

Went through Arkansas last summer but my wheels never stopped turning.
Went bicycling in a very nice park on the MO ARK border.

On 2/3/2014 8:35 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 16:54:46 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

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?

No, he is talking about the law requiring a doctor or hospital to do an
abortion on demand. No matter the beliefs of the doctor or hospital!

Or a law telling them they can't.


There, there it is, that's it... That's what I was waiting for you to
say.. Now tell me where that happens, where they tell them they can't??

On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 20:34:19 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 17:26:56 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 14:31:38 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 12:02:18 -0500, KC wrote:

On 2/3/2014 11:30 AM, wrote:

So, you think it's ok to premurder someone.. Sounds like a Tom Cruise
movie.... No problem, you have the right to think that as crazy as it
sounds to me. Either way, back to the point you keep avoiding.. how does
me being against killing viable humans for financial reasons, make me
only against abortion based on "religious" issues...?

I don't think a fetus is a human, particularly in the first trimester.

We make financial decisions about human life every day and I bet you
agree with most of them. Would it be worth spending an extra billion
dollars a year through some extra regulation to save one life?

I can get along with that. I can't get along with the killing of viable unborn infants.

In a lot of cases it is cruel not to.

If you're referring to the cases where the child will be raised fatherless, destitute, along with 9
other kids in the one-bedroom apartment, it may be cruel to let the child be born. It's not the
doctor's job to foresee the future, however.