On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 07:05:30 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



Any reasonable person can understand the unfortunate requirement for
abortion in the case of rape or health issues. It's the irresponsible
aborting of life for "convenience" that is bothersome.

Some anti-abortionists are against it even in the case of rape.
And I can see that. Innocent life is innocent life.
Personally, I find it abhorrent, and can frankly say I don't know
anyone who has admitted to it.
As a social issue, the thrust should be in preventing unwanted
pregnancies.
But I would never presume to tell anyone not to have an abortion
unless I was willing to support the child myself.
I would work in that direction for my family, but I sure as hell won't
for a stranger, unless I'm taxed for the new "Unwanted Baby
Entitlement Program" Then I'll pitch in with the rest of society.
There's a twist here on Groucho's "I wouldn't belong to any club that
would have me as a member," but it hurts to go there.

--Vic

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

What about a woman forced to risk her life to take a pregnancy to term? Or
a child forced to carry her own father's baby? Is anti-abortion rhetoric
going to help a heroin addict deliver a child with severe mental
deficiencies? Maybe the Christian Coalition would like to adopt all
children born with severe mental and physical deformities, whose life
would only last for a few months? Is this the sanctity of life these
groups extol?

Reproductive rights preserves the rights of the living and often spares an
infant needless suffering. So what is it that the conservatives are
fighting for, anyway? Life at any cost? A utilitarian protection of the
rights of the majority, over the few? Sounds a lot like the ethics of war.
But, then again, that's a conservative value too.


Since you are being rational and non-offensive, I'll offer an opinion.
I recently looked up abortion statistics provided by a pro-abortion
organization.
Less than 1 percent of abortions are performed due to rape.
Something like 3 percent are done due to rape and/or health issues for
mother or unborn.
The rest ... 97 percent ... are done for "convenience".

Any reasonable person can understand the unfortunate requirement for
abortion in the case of rape or health issues. It's the irresponsible
aborting of life for "convenience" that is bothersome.

Eisboch




We're going to have to disagree. To me, the decision in the first three
months is something that is entirely within the purview of a pregnant
woman and her doctor. After that, if there is a strong medical reason
for an abortion, it should be allowed. Otherwise, no.

I also am convinced that the majority of those who speak the loudest
about making abortion illegal are not driven by their feelings of
"sanctity" for human life. If they were, it would be more of an absolute
for them. They would be demonstrating and speaking out en masse against
capital punishment, against war, against the conditions that allow
millions of children in this world to live in squalor and die of
starvation and disease. The fact that they are not doing this tells me
that the "sanctity of life" is not the real issue.

Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 07:05:30 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


Any reasonable person can understand the unfortunate requirement for
abortion in the case of rape or health issues. It's the irresponsible
aborting of life for "convenience" that is bothersome.

Some anti-abortionists are against it even in the case of rape.
And I can see that. Innocent life is innocent life.
Personally, I find it abhorrent, and can frankly say I don't know
anyone who has admitted to it.
As a social issue, the thrust should be in preventing unwanted
pregnancies.
But I would never presume to tell anyone not to have an abortion
unless I was willing to support the child myself.
I would work in that direction for my family, but I sure as hell won't
for a stranger, unless I'm taxed for the new "Unwanted Baby
Entitlement Program" Then I'll pitch in with the rest of society.
There's a twist here on Groucho's "I wouldn't belong to any club that
would have me as a member," but it hurts to go there.

--Vic


If it were men who got pregnant, "abortion" would not be an issue. It
would be "abortion on demand," anytime, anyplace.

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 08:03:49 -0500, HK wrote:

Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 07:05:30 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


Any reasonable person can understand the unfortunate requirement for
abortion in the case of rape or health issues. It's the irresponsible
aborting of life for "convenience" that is bothersome.

Some anti-abortionists are against it even in the case of rape.
And I can see that. Innocent life is innocent life.
Personally, I find it abhorrent, and can frankly say I don't know
anyone who has admitted to it.
As a social issue, the thrust should be in preventing unwanted
pregnancies.
But I would never presume to tell anyone not to have an abortion
unless I was willing to support the child myself.
I would work in that direction for my family, but I sure as hell won't
for a stranger, unless I'm taxed for the new "Unwanted Baby
Entitlement Program" Then I'll pitch in with the rest of society.
There's a twist here on Groucho's "I wouldn't belong to any club that
would have me as a member," but it hurts to go there.

--Vic


If it were men who got pregnant, "abortion" would not be an issue. It
would be "abortion on demand," anytime, anyplace.

Probably something to that. I'm just glad I've never had to make such
a decision. A few years ago my wife collapsed at work with a
spontaneous abortion, losing a tremendous amount of blood.
We didn't know she was pregnant - about 6 weeks.
Rhythm method sucks.
The sonogram at the hospital showed a barely recognizable fetus with a
still beating heart. The baby died within ten minutes. I felt worse
than she did. She was 42 years old. She's told me flat out she would
have an abortion, but I know I would try to convince her otherwise.
The simple solution for us is better birth control.

--Vic

On Feb 15, 6:43*am, HK wrote:
Jim wrote:

How about if I give up on Krause and throw him in the dumper. Will that
make me any smarter?

If you went to Oz and begged, Scarecrow, the wizard might give you a
brain. That would make you smarter.

And if you did the same, they may give you a Zimmerman like lobster
boat, a Yale degree, a Dr. Dr. wife, and on and on....

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 08:01:09 -0500, HK wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

What about a woman forced to risk her life to take a pregnancy to term? Or
a child forced to carry her own father's baby? Is anti-abortion rhetoric
going to help a heroin addict deliver a child with severe mental
deficiencies? Maybe the Christian Coalition would like to adopt all
children born with severe mental and physical deformities, whose life
would only last for a few months? Is this the sanctity of life these
groups extol?

Reproductive rights preserves the rights of the living and often spares an
infant needless suffering. So what is it that the conservatives are
fighting for, anyway? Life at any cost? A utilitarian protection of the
rights of the majority, over the few? Sounds a lot like the ethics of war.
But, then again, that's a conservative value too.


Since you are being rational and non-offensive, I'll offer an opinion.
I recently looked up abortion statistics provided by a pro-abortion
organization.
Less than 1 percent of abortions are performed due to rape.
Something like 3 percent are done due to rape and/or health issues for
mother or unborn.
The rest ... 97 percent ... are done for "convenience".

Any reasonable person can understand the unfortunate requirement for
abortion in the case of rape or health issues. It's the irresponsible
aborting of life for "convenience" that is bothersome.

Eisboch




We're going to have to disagree. To me, the decision in the first three
months is something that is entirely within the purview of a pregnant
woman and her doctor. After that, if there is a strong medical reason
for an abortion, it should be allowed. Otherwise, no.

I also am convinced that the majority of those who speak the loudest
about making abortion illegal are not driven by their feelings of
"sanctity" for human life. If they were, it would be more of an absolute
for them. They would be demonstrating and speaking out en masse against
capital punishment, against war, against the conditions that allow
millions of children in this world to live in squalor and die of
starvation and disease. The fact that they are not doing this tells me
that the "sanctity of life" is not the real issue.

Harry, you should try, sometime, to make your arguments without passing
judgement on those who may disagree with you. When you start taking pot
shots at 'the majority....' (leaving out 'you know who' and 'you know
who'), your arguments become nothing more than a personal attack.

You don't 'know' the personal feelings of others. You keep trying to attach
the killing of unborn babies to deaths in combat. There are a couple of
differences. Deaths of innocent civilians in combat are accidental (please,
don't show me the exceptions), and the deaths of combatants is a matter of
choice. They choose to fight and take the risk.

The killing of unborn babies through abortion is not accidental, nor does
the baby have a choice in the situation.

As far as I know, this is the first time you've discussed a 'three month
rule'. At least you're now approaching a position which many may find more
tenable.
--
John H

Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 08:03:49 -0500, HK wrote:

Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 07:05:30 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


Any reasonable person can understand the unfortunate requirement for
abortion in the case of rape or health issues. It's the irresponsible
aborting of life for "convenience" that is bothersome.

Some anti-abortionists are against it even in the case of rape.
And I can see that. Innocent life is innocent life.
Personally, I find it abhorrent, and can frankly say I don't know
anyone who has admitted to it.
As a social issue, the thrust should be in preventing unwanted
pregnancies.
But I would never presume to tell anyone not to have an abortion
unless I was willing to support the child myself.
I would work in that direction for my family, but I sure as hell won't
for a stranger, unless I'm taxed for the new "Unwanted Baby
Entitlement Program" Then I'll pitch in with the rest of society.
There's a twist here on Groucho's "I wouldn't belong to any club that
would have me as a member," but it hurts to go there.

--Vic

If it were men who got pregnant, "abortion" would not be an issue. It
would be "abortion on demand," anytime, anyplace.

Probably something to that. I'm just glad I've never had to make such
a decision. A few years ago my wife collapsed at work with a
spontaneous abortion, losing a tremendous amount of blood.
We didn't know she was pregnant - about 6 weeks.
Rhythm method sucks.
The sonogram at the hospital showed a barely recognizable fetus with a
still beating heart. The baby died within ten minutes. I felt worse
than she did. She was 42 years old. She's told me flat out she would
have an abortion, but I know I would try to convince her otherwise.
The simple solution for us is better birth control.

--Vic


For thinking adults, abortion is not an easy decision.

There is so much hypocrisy surrounding beliefs about human sexuality and
reproduction that I look askance at anyone who wants to make abortion
illegal. Many of the same people who are vehemently anti-abortion are
also against teaching proper birth control methods to pre-teens and
teens, and against making condoms and other devices easily available to
anyone who wants them. My favorites are the ones who preach
"abstinence." Bill Maher had a wonderful "bit" about the actual impact
of such preaching on young women...

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 08:03:49 -0500, HK wrote:

Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 07:05:30 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


Any reasonable person can understand the unfortunate requirement for
abortion in the case of rape or health issues. It's the irresponsible
aborting of life for "convenience" that is bothersome.

Some anti-abortionists are against it even in the case of rape.
And I can see that. Innocent life is innocent life.
Personally, I find it abhorrent, and can frankly say I don't know
anyone who has admitted to it.
As a social issue, the thrust should be in preventing unwanted
pregnancies.
But I would never presume to tell anyone not to have an abortion
unless I was willing to support the child myself.
I would work in that direction for my family, but I sure as hell won't
for a stranger, unless I'm taxed for the new "Unwanted Baby
Entitlement Program" Then I'll pitch in with the rest of society.
There's a twist here on Groucho's "I wouldn't belong to any club that
would have me as a member," but it hurts to go there.

--Vic


If it were men who got pregnant, "abortion" would not be an issue. It
would be "abortion on demand," anytime, anyplace.

There you go with your generalized attacks again. If men got pregnant,
women would be the providers and lawmakers. Nothing would be changed.
--
John H

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 07:31:01 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 08:03:49 -0500, HK wrote:

Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 07:05:30 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


Any reasonable person can understand the unfortunate requirement for
abortion in the case of rape or health issues. It's the irresponsible
aborting of life for "convenience" that is bothersome.

Some anti-abortionists are against it even in the case of rape.
And I can see that. Innocent life is innocent life.
Personally, I find it abhorrent, and can frankly say I don't know
anyone who has admitted to it.
As a social issue, the thrust should be in preventing unwanted
pregnancies.
But I would never presume to tell anyone not to have an abortion
unless I was willing to support the child myself.
I would work in that direction for my family, but I sure as hell won't
for a stranger, unless I'm taxed for the new "Unwanted Baby
Entitlement Program" Then I'll pitch in with the rest of society.
There's a twist here on Groucho's "I wouldn't belong to any club that
would have me as a member," but it hurts to go there.

--Vic


If it were men who got pregnant, "abortion" would not be an issue. It
would be "abortion on demand," anytime, anyplace.

Probably something to that. I'm just glad I've never had to make such
a decision. A few years ago my wife collapsed at work with a
spontaneous abortion, losing a tremendous amount of blood.
We didn't know she was pregnant - about 6 weeks.
Rhythm method sucks.
The sonogram at the hospital showed a barely recognizable fetus with a
still beating heart. The baby died within ten minutes. I felt worse
than she did. She was 42 years old. She's told me flat out she would
have an abortion, but I know I would try to convince her otherwise.
The simple solution for us is better birth control.

--Vic

According to the religion in which I was raised, abortion for any reason,
including the health of the mother, is wrong. But, I think I'd have your
attitude if it came to the choice between the baby or the mother. If I had
to make the choice between one of my kids (daughters) or the baby, I'd
choose my kid.
--
John H

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 08:42:39 -0500, HK wrote:

Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 08:03:49 -0500, HK wrote:

Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 07:05:30 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


Any reasonable person can understand the unfortunate requirement for
abortion in the case of rape or health issues. It's the irresponsible
aborting of life for "convenience" that is bothersome.

Some anti-abortionists are against it even in the case of rape.
And I can see that. Innocent life is innocent life.
Personally, I find it abhorrent, and can frankly say I don't know
anyone who has admitted to it.
As a social issue, the thrust should be in preventing unwanted
pregnancies.
But I would never presume to tell anyone not to have an abortion
unless I was willing to support the child myself.
I would work in that direction for my family, but I sure as hell won't
for a stranger, unless I'm taxed for the new "Unwanted Baby
Entitlement Program" Then I'll pitch in with the rest of society.
There's a twist here on Groucho's "I wouldn't belong to any club that
would have me as a member," but it hurts to go there.

--Vic

If it were men who got pregnant, "abortion" would not be an issue. It
would be "abortion on demand," anytime, anyplace.

Probably something to that. I'm just glad I've never had to make such
a decision. A few years ago my wife collapsed at work with a
spontaneous abortion, losing a tremendous amount of blood.
We didn't know she was pregnant - about 6 weeks.
Rhythm method sucks.
The sonogram at the hospital showed a barely recognizable fetus with a
still beating heart. The baby died within ten minutes. I felt worse
than she did. She was 42 years old. She's told me flat out she would
have an abortion, but I know I would try to convince her otherwise.
The simple solution for us is better birth control.

--Vic


For thinking adults, abortion is not an easy decision.

There is so much hypocrisy surrounding beliefs about human sexuality and
reproduction that I look askance at anyone who wants to make abortion
illegal. Many of the same people who are vehemently anti-abortion are
also against teaching proper birth control methods to pre-teens and
teens, and against making condoms and other devices easily available to
anyone who wants them. My favorites are the ones who preach
"abstinence." Bill Maher had a wonderful "bit" about the actual impact
of such preaching on young women...

Define 'many', 'most', 'with a few exceptions', 'except you of course', and
your other qualifiers. Who are you trying to not **** off?

Maybe you should stick to your opinions and not try to presume what 'many',
'most', or 'except you of course' believe.
--
John H