"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Hey, we're not that far apart.

My answer is the same for all women: abortion on
demand during the first trimester,

Abortion on demand before the beating of the heart...about 6 weeks. (See?
We're only 6 weeks apart there Harry)

parental notification for very young
girls,

I agree...as long as you define "very young" in the same way as the law.
Those under 18 years old are minors...and the parents should be notified.

but no ability for parental interference in whether the gal gets
one or not.

Minors can't give informed consent. If the parents refuse to sign an
informed consent form, then the doctor shouldn't be able to perform the
procedure. Of course, in cases where the parents are unavailable or deemed
incompetent (and thus can't sign the form), then the courts should be able
to grant consent.




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.

Fine. But 13 years old is too early to "let go".



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.

It's not to "teach her a lesson". It's to protect the life of the infant.
If the pregnancy is past the first trimester, you've already stated that you
oppose the right to an abortion. Are you "teaching the woman a lesson" by
denying her the ability to get an abortion in the 2nd or 3rd trimesters?

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.




--
Email sent to is never read.

"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?

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.

"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?

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.

"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?

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.