The few of us here...
 

Gould 0738 wrote:

Incest is a big problem among you righties.



Harry, that's ridiculous. You sound like Rush Limbaugh in reverse.



Travel through Bush Country in the rural south, my friend.



--
Email sent to is never read.

The few of us here...
 

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:


It's not to "teach her a lesson". It's to protect the life of the
infant.

Bull****.


I can't speak for every pro-lifer, but protecting the life of the unborn is
why *I* feel abortion should be illegal past the first 6 weeks.



If the pregnancy is past the first trimester, you've already stated that
you
oppose the right to an abortion.


No, I didn't state that at all. This is why you (and you really are
brighter than most of the neoCons in here) conservatives get things
confused. You jump to conclusions from information not in play.

I am in favor of abortion on demand for all females during the first
trimester. After the first trimester, abortion should be available to
any female who requires one for any significant medical reason, and
significant includes the health of the mother or the fetus.

Fine. But what about the women who, in the absence of any underlying health
risk to her or the infant, insist upon having the right to an abortion at
*any* stage in the pregnancy? Is forcing her to have the baby after the
first trimester done "just to teach her a lesson"? Or is it to protect the
life of the baby?

I thought my statement was clear.

And it isn't a "baby" until it is born. While in the womb, it is a
fetus. If the fetus is born prematurely and with the help of modern
medicine, it can survive and thrive, it is a baby. I don't buy into the
right-wing "it's a womb baby!" bull****.





--
Email sent to is never read.

The few of us here...
 

On 29 Dec 2003 15:43:19 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Incest is a big problem among you righties.



Harry, that's ridiculous. You sound like Rush Limbaugh in reverse.

Wasting your time, Chuck. I'm sure glad he's on your side!

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

The few of us here...
 

Harry Krause wrote in message ...
Backyard Renegade wrote:

Harry Krause wrote in message ...
John H wrote:
On 27 Dec 2003 20:29:45 -0800, (Backyard
Renegade) wrote:

Harry Krause wrote in message news:bsil4u$d51ji$1@ID-


Yeah, so, why are you coming down so hard on women under 18? You think
they're all incapable and stupid?

You keep spinning it as simply "under 18", let's get the cards on the
table, let's set a number, like 13. OK, you say a 13 yo girl should be
able to get this medical proceedure without her parents permission or
knowledge, how about field trips? Should the school have to tell me
when they are taking my 13 yo out of town? How about plastic surgery,
dating, cerfews, should she be able to get in a car with her friends
dad and take off to New York on a weekend without her parents
permission? I mean, Harry, where do you draw the line, what age do
parents lose all rights to help their kids make decisions? 18, 13,
10??? Or is is just this one decision, abortion you want to apply this
to as it suits your personal agenda of not wanting anyone to be
accountable for anything?

Good points. I'll be very surprised if you get anything more than
sarcasm or generalities from Harry, jps, et al.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!


There are too many instances of right-wing extremist parents forcing
their view of morality on minor girls, with devastating results. If a
13-year-old girl wants or needs an abortion, she should be able to get
one. If her parents want to help, fine. If not, tough darts: the courts
should immediately appoint someone to help the young lady.

The world doesn't need any more of the bigotry, hate and
small-mindedness spewed by right-wingers.

"Hello, Mrs. Gingrich? We have your 13-year-old daughter down here, and
she wants an abortion. Our doctor will perform it in 2 hours. Do you
want to come down here and provide her with support? YEs? Okay, be here
by 3 pm. If not, a friend of the court will help your daughter through
her time of need and the doctor will perform the surgery.

"And no, you cannot remove your pregnant daughter from the premises so
you can try to talk her out of this decision. This is her life, not yours."


How's that?


No good, you still will not answer any direct questions.


What are you babbling about? I gave you my answer on abortions for
13-year-old girls. My answer is the same for all women: abortion on
demand during the first trimester, parental notification for very young
girls, but no ability for parental interference in whether the gal gets
one or not.

Without writing a disseration on the rearing of female teens, let me say
that the household rules and regulations are best determined by direct
negotiations, with the parental units letting go bit by bit.

And, no, I don't believe a gal should be "held accountable" for not
using proper contraception by being forced to bear a child because her
lunatic right-wing parents want to teach her a lesson.

Got it?

ABORTION ON DEMAND FOR ALL FEMALES DURING THE FIRST TRIMESTER. ALL FEMALES.

So how about ear piercing, dating, going on vacations? You still seem
to only want abortions on demand. You keep screaming about the
possible one or two parents who might make wrong decisions for their
children, but ignore the old pervert who got her pregnant... which one
of these folks do you think has the childs best interest in mind, the
parent, or the guy who does not want to get nailed for statutory rape?
Again, you spin to try to say I am trying to hold the girl
accountable, not at all, I am trying to hold the rapist accountable,
but again, that would not suit your agenda...

The few of us here...
 

Harry Krause wrote in message ...
NOYB wrote:


It's not to "teach her a lesson". It's to protect the life of the infant.

Bull****.

If the pregnancy is past the first trimester, you've already stated that you
oppose the right to an abortion.


No, I didn't state that at all. This is why you (and you really are
brighter than most of the neoCons in here) conservatives get things
confused. You jump to conclusions from information not in play.

I am in favor of abortion on demand for all females during the first
trimester. After the first trimester, abortion should be available to
any female who requires one for any significant medical reason, and
significant includes the health of the mother or the fetus.


Yes, and you stated earlier that you would give the parents two hours
to get there and watch. So you are in favor of a dangerous medical
proceedure without any medical information being available to the
child. What if the child has a condition that would kill her in the
operation, are you sure that all these problems could be found in 2
hours while some poor parent without a car was clamoring for a ride to
the clinic? Two hours, **** they require more time to get a tatoo...
But again, keeping the rich old men from accountablilty is your only
concern.

The few of us here...
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Fine. But what about the women who, in the absence of any underlying
health
risk to her or the infant, insist upon having the right to an abortion
at
*any* stage in the pregnancy? Is forcing her to have the baby after the
first trimester done "just to teach her a lesson"? Or is it to protect
the
life of the baby?

I thought my statement was clear.

It is anything *but* clear. Simple question:

*Why* do *you* oppose abortion after the first trimester?

The few of us here...
 

Backyard Renegade wrote:
Harry Krause wrote in message ...
Backyard Renegade wrote:

Harry Krause wrote in message ...
John H wrote:
On 27 Dec 2003 20:29:45 -0800, (Backyard
Renegade) wrote:

Harry Krause wrote in message news:bsil4u$d51ji$1@ID-


Yeah, so, why are you coming down so hard on women under 18? You think
they're all incapable and stupid?

You keep spinning it as simply "under 18", let's get the cards on the
table, let's set a number, like 13. OK, you say a 13 yo girl should be
able to get this medical proceedure without her parents permission or
knowledge, how about field trips? Should the school have to tell me
when they are taking my 13 yo out of town? How about plastic surgery,
dating, cerfews, should she be able to get in a car with her friends
dad and take off to New York on a weekend without her parents
permission? I mean, Harry, where do you draw the line, what age do
parents lose all rights to help their kids make decisions? 18, 13,
10??? Or is is just this one decision, abortion you want to apply this
to as it suits your personal agenda of not wanting anyone to be
accountable for anything?

Good points. I'll be very surprised if you get anything more than
sarcasm or generalities from Harry, jps, et al.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!


There are too many instances of right-wing extremist parents forcing
their view of morality on minor girls, with devastating results. If a
13-year-old girl wants or needs an abortion, she should be able to get
one. If her parents want to help, fine. If not, tough darts: the courts
should immediately appoint someone to help the young lady.

The world doesn't need any more of the bigotry, hate and
small-mindedness spewed by right-wingers.

"Hello, Mrs. Gingrich? We have your 13-year-old daughter down here, and
she wants an abortion. Our doctor will perform it in 2 hours. Do you
want to come down here and provide her with support? YEs? Okay, be here
by 3 pm. If not, a friend of the court will help your daughter through
her time of need and the doctor will perform the surgery.

"And no, you cannot remove your pregnant daughter from the premises so
you can try to talk her out of this decision. This is her life, not yours."


How's that?


No good, you still will not answer any direct questions.


What are you babbling about? I gave you my answer on abortions for
13-year-old girls. My answer is the same for all women: abortion on
demand during the first trimester, parental notification for very young
girls, but no ability for parental interference in whether the gal gets
one or not.

Without writing a disseration on the rearing of female teens, let me say
that the household rules and regulations are best determined by direct
negotiations, with the parental units letting go bit by bit.

And, no, I don't believe a gal should be "held accountable" for not
using proper contraception by being forced to bear a child because her
lunatic right-wing parents want to teach her a lesson.

Got it?

ABORTION ON DEMAND FOR ALL FEMALES DURING THE FIRST TRIMESTER. ALL FEMALES.

So how about ear piercing, dating, going on vacations? You still seem
to only want abortions on demand. You keep screaming about the
possible one or two parents who might make wrong decisions for their
children, but ignore the old pervert who got her pregnant... which one
of these folks do you think has the childs best interest in mind, the
parent, or the guy who does not want to get nailed for statutory rape?
Again, you spin to try to say I am trying to hold the girl
accountable, not at all, I am trying to hold the rapist accountable,
but again, that would not suit your agenda...

Now there's a bizarre thought. Preventing a girl from getting an
abortion and forcing her to bear the child holds the father of the child
accountable.

D'oh.

--
Email sent to is never read.

The few of us here...
 

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Fine. But what about the women who, in the absence of any underlying
health
risk to her or the infant, insist upon having the right to an abortion
at
*any* stage in the pregnancy? Is forcing her to have the baby after the
first trimester done "just to teach her a lesson"? Or is it to protect
the
life of the baby?

I thought my statement was clear.

It is anything *but* clear. Simple question:

*Why* do *you* oppose abortion after the first trimester?


I don't.

--
Email sent to is never read.

The few of us here...
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Fine. But what about the women who, in the absence of any underlying
health
risk to her or the infant, insist upon having the right to an
abortion
at
*any* stage in the pregnancy? Is forcing her to have the baby after
the
first trimester done "just to teach her a lesson"? Or is it to
protect
the
life of the baby?

I thought my statement was clear.

It is anything *but* clear. Simple question:

*Why* do *you* oppose abortion after the first trimester?


I don't.

In the absence of any underlying health risk to the mother or infant, why do
you oppose abortion after the first trimester?

The few of us here...
 

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Fine. But what about the women who, in the absence of any underlying
health
risk to her or the infant, insist upon having the right to an
abortion
at
*any* stage in the pregnancy? Is forcing her to have the baby after
the
first trimester done "just to teach her a lesson"? Or is it to
protect
the
life of the baby?

I thought my statement was clear.

It is anything *but* clear. Simple question:

*Why* do *you* oppose abortion after the first trimester?


I don't.

In the absence of any underlying health risk to the mother or infant, why do
you oppose abortion after the first trimester?

It isn't an issue of concern. Very, very few abortions are performed
after the first trimester except for medical reasons.



--
Email sent to is never read.