On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 22:43:24 -0500, HanK wrote:

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.

Harrison gets a lot of bikers, but I don't know anyone who's been there. They put out a slick
brochure though!

http://issuu.com/arkansas/docs/motor...606929/2641792

KC wrote:
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....

No, I am saying a Catholic or other religious run hospital is forced to do
abortions on demand, despite their beliefs. The women could easily choose
another facility. That is willing to perform the procedure.

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 7:26:03 AM UTC-6, John H. wrote:
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.

Nor the government.

On 2/4/2014 2:49 PM, Califbill wrote:
KC wrote:
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....

No, I am saying a Catholic or other religious run hospital is forced to do
abortions on demand, despite their beliefs. The women could easily choose
another facility. That is willing to perform the procedure.


So, I am still trying to see where the "imposing" comes in...

KC wrote:
On 2/4/2014 2:49 PM, Califbill wrote:
KC wrote:
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....

No, I am saying a Catholic or other religious run hospital is forced to do
abortions on demand, despite their beliefs. The women could easily choose
another facility. That is willing to perform the procedure.


So, I am still trying to see where the "imposing" comes in...

Read the laws.

On 2/5/2014 12:17 AM, Califbill wrote:
KC wrote:
On 2/4/2014 2:49 PM, Califbill wrote:
KC wrote:
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....

No, I am saying a Catholic or other religious run hospital is forced to do
abortions on demand, despite their beliefs. The women could easily choose
another facility. That is willing to perform the procedure.


So, I am still trying to see where the "imposing" comes in...

Read the laws.


I will accept your non-answer, answer.. till you show me somewhere in
the US where any woman, doesn't have access to abortion on demand... I
stipulate the only imposition is making nuns have birth control, private
doctors being forced to perform abortion on demand, and forcing us to
pay for it all with no, not one reasonable compromise like some kind of
time line for AOD, as opposed to saving life... or similar.

On 2/5/14, 9:45 AM, KC wrote:
On 2/5/2014 12:17 AM, Califbill wrote:
KC wrote:
On 2/4/2014 2:49 PM, Califbill wrote:
KC wrote:
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....

No, I am saying a Catholic or other religious run hospital is forced
to do
abortions on demand, despite their beliefs. The women could easily
choose
another facility. That is willing to perform the procedure.


So, I am still trying to see where the "imposing" comes in...

Read the laws.


I will accept your non-answer, answer.. till you show me somewhere in
the US where any woman, doesn't have access to abortion on demand... I
stipulate the only imposition is making nuns have birth control, private
doctors being forced to perform abortion on demand, and forcing us to
pay for it all with no, not one reasonable compromise like some kind of
time line for AOD, as opposed to saving life... or similar.



To name two states, Kansas and Texas have closed down most clinics where
women can obtain abortions, forcing women to drive to other states or
even another country to get one.

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

On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 10:02:01 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

snipped

To name two states, Kansas and Texas have closed down most clinics where
women can obtain abortions, forcing women to drive to other states or
even another country to get one.

Well, I suppose these put the lie to that:

http://www.southwindwomenscenter.org/abortion-care/

http://www.routhstreet.com/

On 2/5/14, 11:04 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 10:02:01 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

snipped

To name two states, Kansas and Texas have closed down most clinics where
women can obtain abortions, forcing women to drive to other states or
even another country to get one.

Well, I suppose these put the lie to that:

http://www.southwindwomenscenter.org/abortion-care/

http://www.routhstreet.com/




I fail to see how your post disputes the fact that Kansas and Texas have
closed most clinics where women can get abortions. You did see the word
"most" in there, right? "Most" does not mean all.

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

On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 11:14:34 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/5/14, 11:04 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 10:02:01 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

snipped

To name two states, Kansas and Texas have closed down most clinics where
women can obtain abortions, forcing women to drive to other states or
even another country to get one.

Well, I suppose these put the lie to that:

http://www.southwindwomenscenter.org/abortion-care/

http://www.routhstreet.com/




I fail to see how your post disputes the fact that Kansas and Texas have
closed most clinics where women can get abortions. You did see the word
"most" in there, right? "Most" does not mean all.

...."forcing women to drive to other states or even another country to get one."

'Forcing' is a very bellicose term, no?