WaIIy wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 11:58:18 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

We don't value life much in the United States, not, of course, unless it
is a fetus. Then we'll kill to protect it.

No, you would just elect to kill the baby.

No judge, no jury, no conscience.


It's not a baby, it's a fetus. And the decision over whether to stay
pregnant or not is a decision that rightfully belongs to the mother and
her medical specialist.

You righties, but not necessarily you, Wally, are absolute hypocrites on
the false "right-to-life" issue. Most righties don't give a tinker's
dam about the problems millions of children already here facr in terms
of medical care, shelter, food, clothing and enjoying a modest lifestyle.

Sometimes I think righties are anti-choice because prevention of
abortions provides plenty of fodder for military expansionism.

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

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 11:58:18 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

We don't value life much in the United States, not, of course, unless it
is a fetus. Then we'll kill to protect it.

No, you would just elect to kill the baby.

No judge, no jury, no conscience.


It's not a baby, it's a fetus. And the decision over whether to stay
pregnant or not is a decision that rightfully belongs to the mother and
her medical specialist.

Depends upon what you believe. You obviously take the convienent view to
your goal of promoting behavior where responsibility is not wanted.

As I said before, if you had a child of yours that was born in the second
tri-mester and is thriving your view would be different.

You righties, but not necessarily you, Wally, are absolute hypocrites on
the false "right-to-life" issue. Most righties don't give a tinker's
dam about the problems millions of children already here facr in terms
of medical care, shelter, food, clothing and enjoying a modest lifestyle.

This gets back to responsibility. Why should I be held monitarily and
socially responsible for your lack of judgement in having wanton sex.

Sometimes I think righties are anti-choice because prevention of
abortions provides plenty of fodder for military expansionism.

You already have the choice to have sex or not have sex. If you have sex and
a pregnancy results you have the responsibility to stand up and take
responsibility and raise the child.

Bert Robbins wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
WaIIy wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 11:58:18 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

We don't value life much in the United States, not, of course, unless it
is a fetus. Then we'll kill to protect it.

No, you would just elect to kill the baby.

No judge, no jury, no conscience.


It's not a baby, it's a fetus. And the decision over whether to stay
pregnant or not is a decision that rightfully belongs to the mother and
her medical specialist.

Depends upon what you believe. You obviously take the convienent view to
your goal of promoting behavior where responsibility is not wanted.

What I believe is the promotion of privacy and the ability of citizens
to make medical decisions in conjunction with their medical professionals.


You righties, but not necessarily you, Wally, are absolute hypocrites on
the false "right-to-life" issue. Most righties don't give a tinker's
dam about the problems millions of children already here facr in terms
of medical care, shelter, food, clothing and enjoying a modest lifestyle.

This gets back to responsibility. Why should I be held monitarily and
socially responsible for your lack of judgement in having wanton sex.


We're talking about the children here, dummy, not their parents.
OF course, as a conservative GOP'er, you really don't give a damn about
the children or the problems they face. After all, they've been
born...and don't need championing, eh?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
WaIIy wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 11:58:18 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

We don't value life much in the United States, not, of course, unless
it
is a fetus. Then we'll kill to protect it.

No, you would just elect to kill the baby.

No judge, no jury, no conscience.


It's not a baby, it's a fetus. And the decision over whether to stay
pregnant or not is a decision that rightfully belongs to the mother and
her medical specialist.

Depends upon what you believe. You obviously take the convienent view to
your goal of promoting behavior where responsibility is not wanted.

What I believe is the promotion of privacy and the ability of citizens
to make medical decisions in conjunction with their medical professionals.

Nobody is saying that you can't do just that. But, when a man and a woman
have sex and the woman gets pregnant then the decision has to be made by the
two of them.

Why if the woman wants to abort and the man wants to keep the baby the
womans desire is important. If the man wants to abort and the woman wants to
keep the baby the man is made to pay for raising the child. If decisions are
important then all parties involved need to be part of the decision making
process.

You righties, but not necessarily you, Wally, are absolute hypocrites
on
the false "right-to-life" issue. Most righties don't give a tinker's
dam about the problems millions of children already here facr in terms
of medical care, shelter, food, clothing and enjoying a modest
lifestyle.

This gets back to responsibility. Why should I be held monitarily and
socially responsible for your lack of judgement in having wanton sex.


We're talking about the children here, dummy, not their parents.
OF course, as a conservative GOP'er, you really don't give a damn about
the children or the problems they face. After all, they've been
born...and don't need championing, eh?

I am worried about the child that is sucked out and thrown away due to the
parents selfishness. The selfless act is raising the child once it is
concieved.

Bert Robbins wrote:


Nobody is saying that you can't do just that. But, when a man and a woman
have sex and the woman gets pregnant then the decision has to be made by the
two of them.


Nope.

We're talking about the children here, dummy, not their parents.
OF course, as a conservative GOP'er, you really don't give a damn about
the children or the problems they face. After all, they've been
born...and don't need championing, eh?

I am worried about the child that is sucked out and thrown away due to the
parents selfishness. The selfless act is raising the child once it is
concieved.


It's a fetus. Not a child.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:


Nobody is saying that you can't do just that. But, when a man and a
woman
have sex and the woman gets pregnant then the decision has to be made by
the
two of them.


Nope.

Why not, the child is a product of the two. There haven't been any
immaculate conceptions in about 2000 years.


We're talking about the children here, dummy, not their parents.
OF course, as a conservative GOP'er, you really don't give a damn about
the children or the problems they face. After all, they've been
born...and don't need championing, eh?

I am worried about the child that is sucked out and thrown away due to
the
parents selfishness. The selfless act is raising the child once it is
concieved.


It's a fetus. Not a child.

Says who?

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 19:22:05 -0400, "Bert Robbins"
wrote:


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

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 11:58:18 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

We don't value life much in the United States, not, of course, unless it
is a fetus. Then we'll kill to protect it.

No, you would just elect to kill the baby.

No judge, no jury, no conscience.


It's not a baby, it's a fetus. And the decision over whether to stay
pregnant or not is a decision that rightfully belongs to the mother and
her medical specialist.

Depends upon what you believe. You obviously take the convienent view to
your goal of promoting behavior where responsibility is not wanted.

As I said before, if you had a child of yours that was born in the second
tri-mester and is thriving your view would be different.

You righties, but not necessarily you, Wally, are absolute hypocrites on
the false "right-to-life" issue. Most righties don't give a tinker's
dam about the problems millions of children already here facr in terms
of medical care, shelter, food, clothing and enjoying a modest lifestyle.

This gets back to responsibility. Why should I be held monitarily and
socially responsible for your lack of judgement in having wanton sex.

Sometimes I think righties are anti-choice because prevention of
abortions provides plenty of fodder for military expansionism.

You already have the choice to have sex or not have sex. If you have sex and
a pregnancy results you have the responsibility to stand up and take
responsibility and raise the child.


Don't talk about personal responsibility. That gives liberals hives.
Society is responsible for each and every problem that happens, and
should bear the burden for their indiscretions.

Dave