|
What a great country, eh?
|
What a great country, eh?
On 2/3/14, 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? Be nice. :) -- There’s no point crying over spilled 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol. |
What a great country, eh?
On 2/3/14, 11:35 AM, 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. And tea party types and ultra conservatives. -- There’s no point crying over spilled 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol. |
What a great country, eh?
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? |
What a great country, eh?
On 2/3/14, 11:47 AM, 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? No one is "imposing" abortions. If you don't want one, don't get one. -- There’s no point crying over spilled 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol. |
What a great country, eh?
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. 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...? |
What a great country, eh?
On 2/3/14, 11:57 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 11:45:26 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 2/3/14, 11:35 AM, wrote: 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. 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. -- There’s no point crying over spilled 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol. |
What a great country, eh?
On 2/3/14, 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". They are not pro life, they are pro fetus. Once there is a birth, the pro lifers disappear. -- There’s no point crying over spilled 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol. |
What a great country, eh?
On 2/3/14, 12:02 PM, KC 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. 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...? "Pre-murder" !!! Now there is an interesting term. -- There’s no point crying over spilled 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol. |
What a great country, eh?
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/ |
What a great country, eh?
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? |
What a great country, eh?
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. |
What a great country, eh?
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. |
What a great country, eh?
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. |
What a great country, eh?
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. |
What a great country, eh?
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. |
What a great country, eh?
|
What a great country, eh?
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 |
What a great country, eh?
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. |
What a great country, eh?
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. |
What a great country, eh?
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.? |
What a great country, eh?
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. |
What a great country, eh?
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.. |
What a great country, eh?
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! |
What a great country, eh?
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. |
What a great country, eh?
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.... |
What a great country, eh?
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. |
What a great country, eh?
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?? |
What a great country, eh?
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. |
What a great country, eh?
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 |
What a great country, eh?
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. |
What a great country, eh?
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. |
What a great country, eh?
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... |
What a great country, eh?
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. |
What a great country, eh?
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. |
What a great country, eh?
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. |
What a great country, eh?
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/ |
What a great country, eh?
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. |
What a great country, eh?
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? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:40 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com