The few of us here...
 

....who actually boat and fish will enjoy this:

http://2coolfishing.com/ttmbforum/sh...&threadid=8202


These guys have some cojones.


--
Email sent to is never read.

The few of us here...
 

This from the man who feels hunting is sinful, but he loves to read about
someone who is catching sharks so they can take glamour pics showing what
big cojones they have. Many of the fish who are caught and released die
from the trauma.

It is this kind of hypocrisy that has endured this man to so many.



"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

...who actually boat and fish will enjoy this:

http://2coolfishing.com/ttmbforum/sh...&threadid=8202


These guys have some cojones.


--
Email sent to is never read.

The few of us here...
 

Harry Krause wrote in message ...
...who actually boat and fish will enjoy this:

http://2coolfishing.com/ttmbforum/sh...&threadid=8202


These guys have some cojones.

Those are sharks you frekin idiot... Just another one of your lies. Or
proof that you don't know your personals from a sharp set of teeth,
whatever that means.

The few of us here...
 

Backyard Renegade wrote:

Harry Krause wrote in message ...
...who actually boat and fish will enjoy this:

http://2coolfishing.com/ttmbforum/sh...&threadid=8202


These guys have some cojones.

Those are sharks you frekin idiot... Just another one of your lies. Or
proof that you don't know your personals from a sharp set of teeth,
whatever that means.

Yeah, that must be it.

--
Email sent to is never read.

The few of us here...
 

In article ,
says...
Backyard Renegade wrote:

Harry Krause wrote in message ...
...who actually boat and fish will enjoy this:

http://2coolfishing.com/ttmbforum/sh...&threadid=8202


These guys have some cojones.

Those are sharks you frekin idiot... Just another one of your lies. Or
proof that you don't know your personals from a sharp set of teeth,
whatever that means.

Yeah, that must be it.

Scotty was makin' a funny. It's a far cry better than accusing left
wingers of wanting to pass legislation so we could take his recently
impregnated daughter across state lines to get her an abortion without
her parents consent.

Even though it wasn't funny, it's a step in the right direction.

The few of us here...
 

Jack Meholf wrote:

This from the man who feels hunting is sinful, but he loves to read about
someone who is catching sharks so they can take glamour pics showing what
big cojones they have. Many of the fish who are caught and released die
from the trauma.

It is this kind of hypocrisy that has endured this man to so many.

Yes.

Unfortunately, the hypocrisy is malicious.


-- Charlie


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

The few of us here...
 

jps wrote in message . ..
In article ,
says...
Backyard Renegade wrote:

Harry Krause wrote in message ...
...who actually boat and fish will enjoy this:

http://2coolfishing.com/ttmbforum/sh...&threadid=8202


These guys have some cojones.

Those are sharks you frekin idiot... Just another one of your lies. Or
proof that you don't know your personals from a sharp set of teeth,
whatever that means.

Yeah, that must be it.

Scotty was makin' a funny. It's a far cry better than accusing left
wingers of wanting to pass legislation so we could take his recently
impregnated daughter across state lines to get her an abortion without
her parents consent.

Even though it wasn't funny, it's a step in the right direction.

Listen here you stupid ****in idiot! First off, if you are going to
take me out of context, use something less than a year old. Second
they did pass the law, but you are to much of a partizan to address
that.
Here it is asshole. You come home one day and find your teenage
daughter somewhat sick and down in the dumps. The next day she is
still puking and not talking. 3 months later there is still something
wrong but you can't get her to talk. 6 months later she is failing is
school and getting into drugs and parties, still little confidence and
a bad attitude. She eventually drops out of school and gets a
waitressing job and moves out... Ten years later you learn that your
little 14 year old girl had gotten pregnant from someone that was
driving her school bus. She was talked into and sneaked over state
lines for an abortion. This changed her whole life, now that she is
older she is still traumatized by the experience.... You realize that
in your childs greatest time of need, you were shut out by some
selfish pervert who used the law to avoid dealing with his problem...
and you were not there for her, your little girl.
Let me ask you something ****head, one question, yes or no, very
simple. Would you support such a law? That's the only issue you seem
to have with me, so what is it, do you support such a law?
The above story is not based on anything I have endured, but there are
folks out there who are, right now. Would you support such a law JPS,
balls up and answer the question you stupid ****in political whore.
Scott Ingersoll

The few of us here...
 

(Backyard Renegade) wrote in message . com...
jps wrote in message . ..
In article ,
says...
Backyard Renegade wrote:

Harry Krause wrote in message ...
...who actually boat and fish will enjoy this:

http://2coolfishing.com/ttmbforum/sh...&threadid=8202


These guys have some cojones.

Those are sharks you frekin idiot... Just another one of your lies. Or
proof that you don't know your personals from a sharp set of teeth,
whatever that means.

Yeah, that must be it.

Scotty was makin' a funny. It's a far cry better than accusing left
wingers of wanting to pass legislation so we could take his recently
impregnated daughter across state lines to get her an abortion without
her parents consent.

Even though it wasn't funny, it's a step in the right direction.

Listen here you stupid ****in idiot! First off, if you are going to
take me out of context, use something less than a year old. Second
they did pass the law, but you are to much of a partizan to address
that.
Here it is asshole. You come home one day and find your teenage
daughter somewhat sick and down in the dumps. The next day she is
still puking and not talking. 3 months later there is still something
wrong but you can't get her to talk. 6 months later she is failing is
school and getting into drugs and parties, still little confidence and
a bad attitude. She eventually drops out of school and gets a
waitressing job and moves out... Ten years later you learn that your
little 14 year old girl had gotten pregnant from someone that was
driving her school bus. She was talked into and sneaked over state
lines for an abortion. This changed her whole life, now that she is
older she is still traumatized by the experience.... You realize that
in your childs greatest time of need, you were shut out by some
selfish pervert who used the law to avoid dealing with his problem...
and you were not there for her, your little girl.
Let me ask you something ****head, one question, yes or no, very
simple. Would you support such a law? That's the only issue you seem
to have with me, so what is it, do you support such a law?
The above story is not based on anything I have endured, but there are
folks out there who are, right now. Would you support such a law JPS,
balls up and answer the question you stupid ****in political whore.
Scott Ingersoll


Come on JPS, can you really discuss real issues, or just tag along
with Harry and Gould on any bandwagon that comes by? You keep bringing
this issue up as a debating point, why won't you discuss your feelings
here, or has no one told you what they should be yet?

The few of us here...
 

Backyard Renegade wrote:

(Backyard Renegade) wrote in message . com...
jps wrote in message . ..
In article ,
says...
Backyard Renegade wrote:

Harry Krause wrote in message ...
...who actually boat and fish will enjoy this:

http://2coolfishing.com/ttmbforum/sh...&threadid=8202


These guys have some cojones.

Those are sharks you frekin idiot... Just another one of your lies. Or
proof that you don't know your personals from a sharp set of teeth,
whatever that means.

Yeah, that must be it.

Scotty was makin' a funny. It's a far cry better than accusing left
wingers of wanting to pass legislation so we could take his recently
impregnated daughter across state lines to get her an abortion without
her parents consent.

Even though it wasn't funny, it's a step in the right direction.

Listen here you stupid ****in idiot! First off, if you are going to
take me out of context, use something less than a year old. Second
they did pass the law, but you are to much of a partizan to address
that.
Here it is asshole. You come home one day and find your teenage
daughter somewhat sick and down in the dumps. The next day she is
still puking and not talking. 3 months later there is still something
wrong but you can't get her to talk. 6 months later she is failing is
school and getting into drugs and parties, still little confidence and
a bad attitude. She eventually drops out of school and gets a
waitressing job and moves out... Ten years later you learn that your
little 14 year old girl had gotten pregnant from someone that was
driving her school bus. She was talked into and sneaked over state
lines for an abortion. This changed her whole life, now that she is
older she is still traumatized by the experience.... You realize that
in your childs greatest time of need, you were shut out by some
selfish pervert who used the law to avoid dealing with his problem...
and you were not there for her, your little girl.
Let me ask you something ****head, one question, yes or no, very
simple. Would you support such a law? That's the only issue you seem
to have with me, so what is it, do you support such a law?
The above story is not based on anything I have endured, but there are
folks out there who are, right now. Would you support such a law JPS,
balls up and answer the question you stupid ****in political whore.
Scott Ingersoll


Come on JPS, can you really discuss real issues, or just tag along
with Harry and Gould on any bandwagon that comes by? You keep bringing
this issue up as a debating point, why won't you discuss your feelings
here, or has no one told you what they should be yet?


Assuming your daughter emerges from puberty without getting pregnant,
she'll still likely to be seeking lots of help later in life to deal
with the issues of being reared by someone like you. You have some real
issues.

Abortion, typically, is a simple medical procedure for a woman, and,
while there may be some regrets about it, there would be far less mental
and physical trauma dumped on the patients if right-wing,
female-controlling male pig-creatures would stop putting themselves
where they have no business being.

Abortion is a medical procedure whose parameters should be decided by a
woman and her doctor. You live in Connecticut, not in Alabama, Texas, or
Mississippi, and where you live, 14-year-old girls know about the birds
and the bees. If a 14-year-old girl is having unprotected sex and that
sex results in pregnancy, she should be able to have her problem taken
care of without the anti-abortion thugs browbeating her.

There's far worse than being 14 and pregnant. I have an acquaintance who
was complaining his girlfriend discovered she was a lesbian and left him
for a woman. "Hell," I told him, "there's nothing wrong with that.
Imagine how you'd feel if she told you she was a Republican."








--
Email sent to is never read.

The few of us here...
 

Real funny, you, a intellectually dishonest man to say the least,
telling me what abortion is and means to women, what a joke you are.
You can slam my parenting skills all you want, but ask my kids
teachers how I have done as a stay home parent the last decade or so.
My oldest is in Japan teaching English after being on the Presidents
list all through college, my youngest has an IQ rated around 130 and
is "working well up to her potential" according to her teacher. I
sacrifice every day like anyone else to keep my kids in one of the
best funded school systems in the country. My middle daugher has a
great job at Signa... Correct, I am against abortion, but... I beleive
strongly in an adult womans right to choose, I beleive that being a
medical proceedure it should be available and also supported by tax
dollars as many other medical proceedures are, for those who choose it
as an option. I also beleive that like many other serious proceedures,
it should be preceeded by fair and informative information for the
patient. Not only that, I would not support ANY constitutional
admendment banning abortion, period, that in my mind would take away a
womans free will. Some christians not only don't quite live properly,
but also don't expect anyone else to either. You see Harry, you guys
always pin me as a far right repub thug, simply cause I am against
Unions (your personal bread and butter) and for parental rights, but
you have no idea what I really am or how I really feel about any other
subject. If you came to live in my town for a while, you would see how
tolerant I actually am when it comes to mostly anything but my own
kids.
Still, all of this is just fodder to avoid answering the real
question. Do you support a law that allows non related adults to take
someone else's daughter for an abortion without the parents knowledge
or concent? JPS and you and the others are quick to slam me for
wanting to preserve only parental rights in the abortion issue, based
on one line taken out of context from a post I made over a year ago,
so how do you feel about this issue yourself, c'mon Harry, JPS, answer
the question, show me some more of how "tolerant" you are?
Scott Ingersoll

The few of us here...
 

and this has to do with what boating???/

The few of us here...
 

Backyard Renegade wrote:

Real funny, you, a intellectually dishonest man to say the least,
telling me what abortion is and means to women, what a joke you are.

I've read enough about the experiences of women and have heard of the
trauma of women going though an abortion to know that most of them get
over it, especially when the right-wing drooolers aren't trying to lay
some idiotic guilt trip on them.



You can slam my parenting skills all you want, but ask my kids
teachers how I have done as a stay home parent the last decade or so.
My oldest is in Japan teaching English after being on the Presidents
list all through college, my youngest has an IQ rated around 130 and
is "working well up to her potential" according to her teacher. I
sacrifice every day like anyone else to keep my kids in one of the
best funded school systems in the country. My middle daugher has a
great job at Signa...

So, what's your problem?



Correct, I am against abortion, but... I beleive
strongly in an adult womans right to choose, I beleive that being a
medical proceedure it should be available and also supported by tax
dollars as many other medical proceedures are, for those who choose it
as an option. I also beleive that like many other serious proceedures,
it should be preceeded by fair and informative information for the
patient. Not only that, I would not support ANY constitutional
admendment banning abortion, period, that in my mind would take away a
womans free will.


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


Some christians not only don't quite live properly,
but also don't expect anyone else to either.

The more they publicly profess their "Christianity" and push it on
others, the less likely they are to be following the teachings of their
Savior.





Still, all of this is just fodder to avoid answering the real
question. Do you support a law that allows non related adults to take
someone else's daughter for an abortion without the parents knowledge
or concent?

Sure, if those parents are going to interfere in anyway with the desire
of the "daughter" to obtain an abortion.



JPS and you and the others are quick to slam me for
wanting to preserve only parental rights in the abortion issue, based
on one line taken out of context from a post I made over a year ago,


The "parental units" aren't pregnant here, the daughter is. The decision
should be between the young lady and her doctor.


so how do you feel about this issue yourself, c'mon Harry, JPS, answer
the question, show me some more of how "tolerant" you are?
Scott Ingersoll

I've already stated my opinion. If a young lady or woman wants to
terminate her pregnancy in a medically acceptable way, that's her business.




--
Email sent to is never read.

The few of us here...
 

you guys are azzholes!%

The few of us here...
 

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

Real funny, you, a intellectually dishonest man to say the least,
telling me what abortion is and means to women, what a joke you are.

I've read enough about the experiences of women and have heard of the
trauma of women going though an abortion to know that most of them get
over it, especially when the right-wing drooolers aren't trying to lay
some idiotic guilt trip on them.

"Idiotic guilt trip?"

For we are not fighting against people made of flesh and blood, but
against the evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against
those mighty powers of darkness who rule this world, and against
wicked spirits in the heavenly realms.
NLT Copyright 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against
principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of
this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly
places.
NKJV Copyright 1982 Thomas Nelson

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the
rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness,
against the spiritual {forces} of wickedness in the heavenly {places.}
NASB copyright 1995 Lockman Foundation

For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the
principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this
present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the
heavenly places.
RSV copyright info

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against
principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of
this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places].

because we have not the wrestling with blood and flesh, but with
the principalities, with the authorities, with the world-rulers of the
darkness of this age, with the spiritual things of the evil in the
heavenly places;

because our struggle is not against blood and flesh, but against
principalities, against authorities, against the universal lords of
this darkness, against spiritual [power] of wickedness in the
heavenlies.

For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the
principalities, against the powers, against the world-rulers of this
darkness, against the spiritual [hosts] of wickedness in the heavenly
[places].

For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the
principalities, against the powers, against the world's rulers of the
darkness of this age, and against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in
the heavenly places.

quia non est nobis conluctatio adversus carnem et sanguinem sed
adversus principes et potestates adversus mundi rectores tenebrarum
harum contra spiritalia nequitiae in caelestibus

The few of us here...
 

" the courage of men will fail. But not this day!"
The Lord of the Rings
Return of the King
December 2003

The few of us here...
 

The few of us here...
 

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?


Some christians not only don't quite live properly,
but also don't expect anyone else to either.

The more they publicly profess their "Christianity" and push it on
others, the less likely they are to be following the teachings of their
Savior.





Still, all of this is just fodder to avoid answering the real
question. Do you support a law that allows non related adults to take
someone else's daughter for an abortion without the parents knowledge
or concent?

Sure, if those parents are going to interfere in anyway with the desire
of the "daughter" to obtain an abortion.



JPS and you and the others are quick to slam me for
wanting to preserve only parental rights in the abortion issue, based
on one line taken out of context from a post I made over a year ago,


The "parental units" aren't pregnant here, the daughter is. The decision
should be between the young lady and her doctor.


so how do you feel about this issue yourself, c'mon Harry, JPS, answer
the question, show me some more of how "tolerant" you are?
Scott Ingersoll

I've already stated my opinion. If a young lady or woman wants to
terminate her pregnancy in a medically acceptable way, that's her business.

The few of us here...
 

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!

The few of us here...
 

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?


--
Email sent to is never read.

The few of us here...
 

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.

The few of us here...
 

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.




--
Email sent to is never read.

The few of us here...
 

"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?

The few of us here...
 

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.

The few of us here...
 

On 29 Dec 2003 05:41:07 -0800, (Backyard
Renegade) wrote:

Harry Krause wrote in message ...
Snipped
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.

Harry's preferred scenario would go like this:

"Hello, Harry, your 13 year-old daughter is down in the basement
giving head to my son. You want to come over and talk to her or
anything?"

"No man, I don't force my morality on my daughter. I'm afraid the
results would be devastating. I never have tried to imbue her with any
sense of morality, so no sense in starting now. Why don't you call a
friend of the court?"





John H

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

The few of us here...
 

John H wrote:

On 29 Dec 2003 05:41:07 -0800, (Backyard
Renegade) wrote:

Harry Krause wrote in message ...
Snipped
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.

Harry's preferred scenario would go like this:


You had me fooled for a while, John. I thought you were brighter than
the average neoCon. You're not.

Once a 13-year-old girl is pregnant, it's a bit late to be forcing
right-wing "morality" issues on her, eh?

Some years ago, at one of the mindless right-wing fundie churches in
Jax, the pre-teens were forced to sign a pledge that they would abstain
from pre-marital sex. The pledge was reinforced with the usual anti-sex
obnoxiousness of the right wing.

Result? More pregnancies among the gals the next few years than ever in
the church's history.

The unanswered question? How many were the result of daddy messing with
his little gal. Incest is a big problem among you righties.








--
Email sent to is never read.

The few of us here...
 

Harry's preferred scenario would go like this:

"Hello, Harry, your 13 year-old daughter is down in the basement
giving head to my son. You want to come over and talk to her or
anything?"

So, it would be up to Harry to control his daughter- but if your son can knock
off a little chunk here and there it's all winks, nods, and elbow nudges?

Get the heck off the phone and deal with your son. :-)

It's always amazing that people approach sex with such a double standard. If a
young man is sexually active at an early age, it's almost a badge of honor. A
young woman at the same age? Too often she's called a whore, a slut, or etc.

Can't have it both ways. Can't handle male sexuality with a wink and a nod,
(handing Jr a condom with the car keys), and throw a virginity belt on the
females..........unless of course one thinks the males should be porking each
other.......and I don't think most of the double standard folks actually
condone that, either.

The few of us here...
 

Incest is a big problem among you righties.



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

The few of us here...
 

On 29 Dec 2003 15:41:37 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Harry's preferred scenario would go like this:

"Hello, Harry, your 13 year-old daughter is down in the basement
giving head to my son. You want to come over and talk to her or
anything?"

So, it would be up to Harry to control his daughter- but if your son can knock
off a little chunk here and there it's all winks, nods, and elbow nudges?

Get the heck off the phone and deal with your son. :-)

It's always amazing that people approach sex with such a double standard. If a
young man is sexually active at an early age, it's almost a badge of honor. A
young woman at the same age? Too often she's called a whore, a slut, or etc.

Can't have it both ways. Can't handle male sexuality with a wink and a nod,
(handing Jr a condom with the car keys), and throw a virginity belt on the
females..........unless of course one thinks the males should be porking each
other.......and I don't think most of the double standard folks actually
condone that, either.


Aw Chuc, you missed the point. Someone had stated, "There are too many
instances of right-wing extremist parents forcing their view of
morality on minor girls, with devastating results."

Don't read any more into it than you have to.

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
...
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?

The few of us here...
 

Gould 0738 wrote:
Harry's preferred scenario would go like this:

"Hello, Harry, your 13 year-old daughter is down in the basement
giving head to my son. You want to come over and talk to her or
anything?"

So, it would be up to Harry to control his daughter- but if your son can knock
off a little chunk here and there it's all winks, nods, and elbow nudges?

Get the heck off the phone and deal with your son. :-)

Gotta wonder if his son practices safe sex...



--
Email sent to is never read.

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.