This is not a test
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 23:02:42 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..


In my heart, I believe the anti-abortionists are that way because of
psychological, rather than religious reasons, anyway. It is a
patriarchal belief, even though some women share in it. It is a method
to control women.

Sure. Right. A method to control women......

It has absolutely nothing to do with the rights of the unborn child, does
it?

Eisboch

Ahh...the Fetus Rights Movement, a division of the Fundamentalist Borg
Church, no doubt.
You are truly unbelievable. On one hand you are for freedom of expression,
thought and to a degree, deed.
But on the other, all above is subject to your approval and beliefs. Those
that don't subscribe are lacking in intelligence,
rightwing religious nut cases, schitt heads or dumbfochs.

Do you have any idea of how narrow minded you are?

What Harry knows about anything can be written on the tip of a stick
pin using a railroad spike as a chisel and a twelve pound sledge
hammer as a striker.

In 72 point Gothic script.



Ahhh...it's Good Job, Brownie, the one whose etec outboard puts more
gasoline back in the tank than it uses for each hour it operates.

This is not a test
 

Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..


In my heart, I believe the anti-abortionists are that way because of
psychological, rather than religious reasons, anyway. It is a
patriarchal belief, even though some women share in it. It is a method
to control women.

Sure. Right. A method to control women......

It has absolutely nothing to do with the rights of the unborn child, does
it?

Eisboch

Ahh...the Fetus Rights Movement, a division of the Fundamentalist Borg
Church, no doubt.


You are truly unbelievable. On one hand you are for freedom of expression,
thought and to a degree, deed.
But on the other, all above is subject to your approval and beliefs. Those
that don't subscribe are lacking in intelligence,
rightwing religious nut cases, schitt heads or dumbfochs.

Do you have any idea of how narrow minded you are?

Eisboch




You seem to have it completely wrong. While I disapprove of Palin
continuing her late in life pregnancy* once she knew she was going to
have a baby with "problems," I'd not want to do anything to prevent her
from going full term. Her choice. I'm not pushing my beliefs at her.

What she and McBush want to do is take that "choice" away from women
who think otherwise. They, not I, want to dictate their approval and
beliefs on women.

Big difference.

And the difference carries over to my feelings about religion, too. So
long as you are not hurting anyone, I don't care what religion you
practice in your house of worship, in your home, or in your privately
funded school. That's your choice. But don't try to shove those
religious beliefs in my face, via legislation, judicial decisions, or
signing statements.



* BTW, there is a very interesting and juicy rumor floating about
regarding Ms. Palin and that pregnancy. It's too salacious for even me
to repeat it here or discuss it before the story breaks.

This is not a test
 

Raymond O'Hara wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Fred J. McCall wrote:
hk wrote:

:Eisboch wrote:
: "hk" wrote in message :
. ..
: : Ain't that the truth. It is amazing and disgusting how the far
right uses : religion. If there is a hell, they'll all burn in it for
hypocrisy's sake : alone.
: : Right beside the "pro-choicers" who condemn women for choosing not
to abort : a child with a handicap.
: :
:Pro-choicers do not force their beliefs on anti-abortionists, ...
:

Well, yeah, they do.

:
:... but :anti-abortionists want to force their beliefs on pro-choicers.
:

I know it's hard for folks like you, but let's try and look at this
from the other side and then form an analogy that will feel the same
to you as abortion does to them.

Suppose I believe I should be able to murder unwanted people pretty
much at will for any reason or for no reason at all other than that
they inconvenience me. You disagree and go on about the sanctity of
human life and how killing them is wrong and want laws to stop me. My
response is that very few of the two leggers are actually human, so
killing the others is no worse than cutting a fingernail.

So, wouldn't there be something wrong with you NOT wanting to 'force
your view' on me?

That's how they feel about abortion. For you it's an intellectual
question. For them it's a case of whether murder is acceptable.
Discussion of the issue as if it is just an intellectual question for
them, as well, is simply a waste of time and effort and pretending
that there is something 'wrong' because they don't view it the way you
do is merely specious.


Your supposition is silliness.
If the anti-abortionists were truly against killing human beings, they
would be opposed to capital punishment and war. But most aren't; they
pervert their religious texts to justify capital punishment and war.

In my heart, I believe the anti-abortionists are that way because of
psychological, rather than religious reasons, anyway. It is a patriarchal
belief, even though some women share in it. It is a method to control
women.





"republicans believe the right to life starts at conception and ends with
birth"
barney frank.




That's pretty much it.

This is not a test
 

tankfixer wrote:
In article , raymond-
says...
"tankfixer" wrote in message
. ..
dying.
and telling people with nowhere to go and no cars to get there is rather
hopeless.
but nothing is ever georges fault is it.
If he had acted before being asked you would be howling how he excceed
his authority
straw man arguments is all you ever have.

PKB son.

The president does not have dictatorial powers, no matter what your
paranoid mind may think.




"Signing statements..."

This is not a test
 

Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..


In my heart, I believe the anti-abortionists are that way because of
psychological, rather than religious reasons, anyway. It is a patriarchal
belief, even though some women share in it. It is a method to control
women.


Sure. Right. A method to control women......

It has absolutely nothing to do with the rights of the unborn child, does
it?

Eisboch




What rights?

Roe v. Wade states that abortions are permissible for any reason, up
until the point a fetus becomes viable, which means potentially able to
live outside a mother's womb. Viability typically takes place somewhere
between 24 and 28 weeks. Abortion is also available after viability when
necessary to protect a woman's health.

"Unborn child," by the way, is a favorite phrase of those who want to
reverse Roe v. Wade. It is an emotionally charged term, and elicits
precisely the response they want.

The proper term is embryo or fetus. In humans, the fetal stage doesn't
even begin until nearly three months into a pregnancy. Until then, it is
just an embryo.

Another poster just brought up the fly in the ointment that the
anti-choice folks just don't want to discuss, the fact that for many of
them, the right to life ends at birth. You know how that goes...no
abortions because that fetus in your womb is a life, but once that fetus
is born, well, it's pretty much on its own, and if it dies because of
inadequate health care or environmental conditions, or whatever, well,
that's just too bad, hey?

This is not a test
 

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 15:36:02 -0500, thunder wrote:


There were a few bright spots, the military, especially the Coast Guard.
They began pre-positioning resources several days ahead of the storm.
Of the 60,000 stranded by the storm, the Coast Guard rescued 33,500.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/05/
katrina_what_the_media_missed.html

This is not a test
 

On Sep 1, 1:16*am, tankfixer wrote:
In article , raymond-
says...



"tankfixer" wrote in message
...
dying.

and telling people with nowhere to go and no cars to get there is rather
hopeless.
but nothing is ever georges fault is it.

If he had acted before being asked you would be howling how he excceed
his authority

straw man arguments is all you ever have.

PKB son.

The president does not have dictatorial powers, no matter what your
paranoid mind may think.

--
Meddle ye not in the Affairs of Dragons, for Thou art Crunchy and taste
Goode with Ketchup.

What about the presumptive nominee?

This is not a test
 

"hk" wrote in message
. ..


You seem to have it completely wrong. While I disapprove of Palin
continuing her late in life pregnancy* once she knew she was going to have
a baby with "problems," I'd not want to do anything to prevent her from
going full term. Her choice. I'm not pushing my beliefs at her.



No. You simply indicated that she was selfish, irresponsible and should
have aborted the child, amoung other things.

That's not pushing your beliefs?

You know Harry, you often claim to be misunderstood, or that others miss
your points.

You, more than most, should realize that the art of communication is
two-sided.
You a responsibility to accurately and clearly state your views so that
others have a reasonable chance of interpreting them properly. In a forum
like this, that responsibility extends across a broad range of readers.

You seem to discard anyone who doesn't "get it" as being less intelligent,
being poorly educated, or otherwise inferior to your self granted and
percieved lofty intellect.

That's not an indication of intelligence. It's a confirmation of
arrogance.

Eisboch

This is not a test
 

Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..

You seem to have it completely wrong. While I disapprove of Palin
continuing her late in life pregnancy* once she knew she was going to have
a baby with "problems," I'd not want to do anything to prevent her from
going full term. Her choice. I'm not pushing my beliefs at her.



No. You simply indicated that she was selfish, irresponsible and should
have aborted the child, amoung other things.

That's not pushing your beliefs?

Of course not. If I were "pushing" my beliefs, I'd be actively seeking
judicial or legislative solutions, or attacking anti-abortion protesters.

I don't give a damn if the righties want to tell us how awful abortion
is, or how wonderful Jesus is, or whatever, so long as they do it from a
private soapbox or a pulpit, and don't try to push their agenda through
the courts or legislation.

I'm entitled to present my opinion about her pregnancy. I'm not entitled
to make her conform to my opinion.

Is that simple enough?




You know Harry, you often claim to be misunderstood, or that others miss
your points.

You, more than most, should realize that the art of communication is
two-sided.
You a responsibility to accurately and clearly state your views so that
others have a reasonable chance of interpreting them properly. In a forum
like this, that responsibility extends across a broad range of readers.

You seem to discard anyone who doesn't "get it" as being less intelligent,
being poorly educated, or otherwise inferior to your self granted and
percieved lofty intellect.

That's not an indication of intelligence. It's a confirmation of
arrogance.

Eisboch

Do you get it now?

Did I make it simple enough?

:}

This is not a test
 

"hk" wrote in message
. com...

Eisboch wrote:


Sure. Right. A method to control women......

It has absolutely nothing to do with the rights of the unborn child, does
it?

Eisboch



What rights?

Roe v. Wade states that abortions are permissible for any reason, up until
the point a fetus becomes viable, which means potentially able to live
outside a mother's womb. Viability typically takes place somewhere between
24 and 28 weeks. Abortion is also available after viability when necessary
to protect a woman's health.



That's a legal opinion. It's not a personal opinion based on moral or
religious beliefs.
In this country, one is entitled to them as well.

I have no problem with a legally defined standard of pro-choice.
I *do* have a problem with those who like to pass judgment on the choices
made, trying to affect future decisions of others, or attempting to
undermine a person's credibility/morality to the furtherment of *their*
beliefs or political agendas.

Which, BTW, is exactly what you do.

In my case, I happen to believe that life begins at conception. It's not a
religious based opinion. It's a personal opinion, based on the fact that
life itself begets life. But, I don't push that on others unless they
happen to ask, or the subject comes up in a general discussion.

Eisboch