wrote in message
...
You do mean pro-choice. Cause nobody except a few lunatics are
pro-abortion.

I have heard some pro-abortion advocates lately. Alexander Sanger, the
grandson of Margaret Sanger, wrote a book on the subject called "Beyond
Choice." I heard an interview with him on the Signorile show on Sirius
Radio. He made some good points and didn't appear to be a lunatic. Unless
you think that abortion is a moral issue instead of a medical issue, there
is no reason to make moralistic judgment about the person who has an
abortion. In fact, Sanger argues that a person who chooses an abortion can
actually be doing the moral thing for herself, her family, and society. The
anti-abortion movement has been wonderfully successful in framing the issue
in religious and moralistic terms just as they have turned same-sex marriage
into a religious argument instead of a civil rights or legal argument.
http://www.alexandersanger.com/book.html

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 05:18:56 +0100, Janet Baraclough..
wrote:

The message
from (The Watcher) contains these words:

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 06:18:42 -0400, Ann wrote:

"Cindy" expounded:

mothers seeking abortions

Now there's an oxymoron for you. Women seeking abortions are not
mothers.

Not even if they already have a dozen kids? How would you characterize their
relationship to those 12 kids then?

Maybe she thinks women whose babies are stillborn are also "not mothers".

Reminds me of a guy I work with who thinks that if a father of 10 kids dies and
leaves the mother and kids, what's left is no longer a "family". :/

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 14:33:14 GMT, "Vox Humana" wrote:


wrote in message
...
You do mean pro-choice. Cause nobody except a few lunatics are
pro-abortion.

I have heard some pro-abortion advocates lately.

Haven't heard any of them advocating bombing anti-choice people or shooting
them, though?

Alexander Sanger, the
grandson of Margaret Sanger, wrote a book on the subject called "Beyond
Choice." I heard an interview with him on the Signorile show on Sirius
Radio. He made some good points and didn't appear to be a lunatic. Unless
you think that abortion is a moral issue instead of a medical issue, there
is no reason to make moralistic judgment about the person who has an
abortion. In fact, Sanger argues that a person who chooses an abortion can
actually be doing the moral thing for herself, her family, and society. The
anti-abortion movement has been wonderfully successful in framing the issue
in religious and moralistic terms just as they have turned same-sex marriage
into a religious argument instead of a civil rights or legal argument.

I wouldn't call them wonderfully successful. They're just playing their favorite
card, which they try to use in EVERY situation, since they think THEIR religion
should control every situation.

"Ann" wrote in message
...
Janet Baraclough.. expounded:

Maybe she thinks women whose babies are stillborn are also "not mothers".

Oh, now, that's definitely the same thing. Anything to stretch a
point.

A woman losing a wanted pregnancy is nowhere near the same thing as a
woman to aborts. And just to clarify (not that it'll stop all you
howling pro-abortionists out there) I am totally against laws
regulating abortion. I just don't like it and would never do it
myself. Personal choice. I realize that's a threat to
pro-abortionists, we're all supposed to love it.

And to stop your next blast, I'm no christian.

That is good!

I would never want anyone in my family to have an abortion but I am
pro-choice.

You sound bitter.

Richard

"Janet Baraclough.." wrote in message
...
The message
from Ann contains these words:

Janet Baraclough.. expounded:

Maybe she thinks women whose babies are stillborn are also "not
mothers".

Oh, now, that's definitely the same thing. Anything to stretch a
point.

When a less loaded term is used you instantly recognise that despite
the death of the unborn child, the person who just gave birth is a
mother. Perhaps if more people recognised that, abortion would never be
used as backstop contraception.


Maybe if people didn't turn a medical procedure into a moralist, judgmental
battle it wouldn't be so traumatic. I don't think abortion should be used
as a contraceptive method, but only because there are far less invasive
methods available. Unfortunately, the very same people who have made the
prohibition of abortion their raison d'être also want to ban any discussion
of birth control methods, particularly if that discussion takes place in a
school. Thank to idiots like George Bush, people are being subjected to the
ridiculous "abstinence only" approach to sexuality. So having to use
abortion as a method of contraception becomes more likely as does the
transmission of disease. Thank you Jesus!

"Richard" expounded:

You sound bitter.

Not in the least.

I would never want anyone in my family to have an abortion but I am
pro-choice.

Where did I say that? You aren't going to win any argument with me by
twisting and inventing. Just because I'm not singing the praises of
abortion? It's a horrible, sometimes necessary thing. I've made sure
I've never had to deal with it in my life by being responsible for
myself and not relying on anyone else. That's all I would want for
anyone in my family. I'm no judge or jury, neither are you.
--
Ann, Gardening in zone 6a
Just south of Boston, MA
********************************

"Ann" wrote in message
...
Janet Baraclough.. expounded:


I've never met any woman who loved abortion.

Unfortunately I've met some who don't seem to mind it.

Isn't abortion much more expensive than birth control?

Helen



--
Ann, Gardening in zone 6a
Just south of Boston, MA
********************************

The mantra of most pro-choice people I've ever heard, is to make abortion
safe, legal, and RARE. As far as I can ascertain, the mantra of
anti-abortion people is to make abortion unsafe, illegal, and (in the
absence of effective birth control measures, which they don't support), one
can only suppose, common.......
As a man, I will never be faced with this difficult and wrenching choice. I
think it's incredible that legislatures and courts which are predominantly
male are making these choices for women........

"Helen Crames" wrote in message
news:pgBUc.276159$%_6.32608@attbi_s01...

Isn't abortion much more expensive than birth control?

Helen

Not if the government pays for it.

"Vox Humana" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Vox Humana" wrote in message
...

"Wil" wrote in message
...
Homosexuals are not married. They are partners of a different kind,
like
room mates, or other kind of sex partner but can not legally enter
into
the
marriage contract. They have rights as individual but not as a
couple
who
is
in a marriage contract between a man and a woman. It has to do with
a
legal
contract. The contract says between a man and a woman.


I don't think that is being questioned. The issue is that same-sex
couples
SHOULD have the right to enter into the same contract. It's simply a
legal
matter. If churches don't want to "marry" same-sex couples, that's
their
business. Remember, at one time marriage was only open to two white
people
of opposite genders. People in mixed race marriages were criminals in
many
states. People saw that as a partnership of a different kind. Things
change.



It's appalling that on the spectrum of things which truly threaten this
country, some people think someone else's sexuality is more important
than
the fact that most shipping containers entering our ports could be
filled
with nuclear weapons and we'd be none the wiser. But, I guess they're
right.
I had a gay neighbor. He forgot to mow his lawn once before he left on
vacation. Years later, the children in the neighborhood are still in
therapy, some unable to speak or function in school.


Some of our neighbors are going to be in therapy soon. The fundamentalist
Christian family four doors up just sold their house to a lesbian couple.
I
heard about it from a neighbor who heard about it from someone on another
street! The women haven't even moved in yet. God only knows what they
say
about me. I sort of hope that it pushes some of them over-the-edge and
they
move. I wonder what they say about the unmarried heterosexual couples of
the serially divorced people who live on our street. If they only focused
that energy on their kids. Most of them don't have a clue where their
pre-school kids are much of the day. You can't leave your garage open
while
you do yard work or they are in there exploring.



Yeah...I've seen those kids. Last week, our electric company was digging up
front lawns for some reason in my ex wife's neighborhood. It was her turn
when I stopped to pick up my son. There was an 8 ft deep 10x10 hole in the
ground, covered by boards. My son (15) pointed out to me that a board had
been moved. In the trench were two 10 yr old kids, "exploring". They'd tied
a rope to the fire hydrant and lowered themselves in. We returned them to
their homes. One parent wasn't there. The other said "boys will be boys!".
Since I don't live there any more, I don't care what they think of me, so I
whispered the truth in her ear. If there weren't laws against assault, I
think she would've assaulted me. :-)

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...


Some of our neighbors are going to be in therapy soon. The
fundamentalist
Christian family four doors up just sold their house to a lesbian
couple.
I
heard about it from a neighbor who heard about it from someone on
another
street! The women haven't even moved in yet. God only knows what they
say
about me. I sort of hope that it pushes some of them over-the-edge and
they
move. I wonder what they say about the unmarried heterosexual couples
of
the serially divorced people who live on our street. If they only
focused
that energy on their kids. Most of them don't have a clue where their
pre-school kids are much of the day. You can't leave your garage open
while
you do yard work or they are in there exploring.



Yeah...I've seen those kids. Last week, our electric company was digging
up
front lawns for some reason in my ex wife's neighborhood. It was her turn
when I stopped to pick up my son. There was an 8 ft deep 10x10 hole in the
ground, covered by boards. My son (15) pointed out to me that a board had
been moved. In the trench were two 10 yr old kids, "exploring". They'd
tied
a rope to the fire hydrant and lowered themselves in. We returned them to
their homes. One parent wasn't there. The other said "boys will be boys!".
Since I don't live there any more, I don't care what they think of me, so
I
whispered the truth in her ear. If there weren't laws against assault, I
think she would've assaulted me. :-)


The popular toys this year seem to be motorized cars and scooters. The
fundamentalist, who don't watch their kids, got their 4 year old an electric
Jeep. Last night around dusk, he slammed it into the neighbors mailbox
post, breaking the post. It was a hit-and-run. Another neighbor saw it and
let our neighbor know what happened. When they approached the boy's father
to tell him what happened, the man didn't even express any concern or
apologize. I guess he said that the post was most likely rotted anyway and
after looking at it he just walked away. After a few steps, he turned
around and said if it didn't "cost too much" he would help pay for the
damage! I wonder if they teach that in the Old Testament or the New
Testament?

"Janet Baraclough.." wrote in message
...
The message
from "Vox Humana" contains these words:


"Janet Baraclough.." wrote in
message
...

Maybe if people didn't turn a medical procedure into a moralist,
judgmental
battle it wouldn't be so traumatic.

In the UK, contraception and abortion are available from both the
National Health Service (free) and private clinics. There's a nationwide
educational policy of teaching sex-education including contraception in
schools. Abortion isn't a political-party issue at government
level.(Though of course, there are many objectors at grass roots level).
It might not involve a moralist judgemental battle here to the extent
you suggest in the USA, but I suspect to most women abortion is still
more of an emotional and personal trauma than other "medical
procedures". All women seeking an abortion are supposedly counselled
first.

I don't think abortion should be used
as a contraceptive method, but only because there are far less invasive
methods available. Unfortunately, the very same people who have made
the
prohibition of abortion their raison d'être also want to ban any
discussion
of birth control methods, particularly if that discussion takes place in
a
school. Thank to idiots like George Bush, people are being subjected to
the
ridiculous "abstinence only" approach to sexuality.

Is that called the silver-ring pledge or some such? They've been on a
mission over here fairly recently but I don't know what reception they
got.

I don't know about "silver-ring" but I can assure you that it is George
Bush's "silver lining" when it comes to generating votes among his
fundamentalist base. There are only two issues that concern the religious
right - sex, and sex.

"Janet Baraclough.." wrote in message
...
The message
from "Vox Humana" contains these words:

"Janet Baraclough.." wrote in
message
...

Is that called the silver-ring pledge or some such? They've been on
a
mission over here fairly recently but I don't know what reception they
got.

I don't know about "silver-ring" but I can assure you that it is George
Bush's "silver lining" when it comes to generating votes among his
fundamentalist base. There are only two issues that concern the
religious
right - sex, and sex.

It's hard to imagine here. ISTR 10 % or less of the UK population
attend Christian church.


Yes, your part of the globe is always used as an example of what could
happen here if we let the evil secularist have their way!

"Vox Humana" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...


Some of our neighbors are going to be in therapy soon. The
fundamentalist
Christian family four doors up just sold their house to a lesbian
couple.
I
heard about it from a neighbor who heard about it from someone on
another
street! The women haven't even moved in yet. God only knows what
they
say
about me. I sort of hope that it pushes some of them over-the-edge
and
they
move. I wonder what they say about the unmarried heterosexual couples
of
the serially divorced people who live on our street. If they only
focused
that energy on their kids. Most of them don't have a clue where their
pre-school kids are much of the day. You can't leave your garage open
while
you do yard work or they are in there exploring.



Yeah...I've seen those kids. Last week, our electric company was digging
up
front lawns for some reason in my ex wife's neighborhood. It was her
turn
when I stopped to pick up my son. There was an 8 ft deep 10x10 hole in
the
ground, covered by boards. My son (15) pointed out to me that a board
had
been moved. In the trench were two 10 yr old kids, "exploring". They'd
tied
a rope to the fire hydrant and lowered themselves in. We returned them
to
their homes. One parent wasn't there. The other said "boys will be
boys!".
Since I don't live there any more, I don't care what they think of me,
so
I
whispered the truth in her ear. If there weren't laws against assault, I
think she would've assaulted me. :-)


The popular toys this year seem to be motorized cars and scooters. The
fundamentalist, who don't watch their kids, got their 4 year old an
electric
Jeep. Last night around dusk, he slammed it into the neighbors mailbox
post, breaking the post. It was a hit-and-run. Another neighbor saw it
and
let our neighbor know what happened. When they approached the boy's
father
to tell him what happened, the man didn't even express any concern or
apologize. I guess he said that the post was most likely rotted anyway
and
after looking at it he just walked away. After a few steps, he turned
around and said if it didn't "cost too much" he would help pay for the
damage! I wonder if they teach that in the Old Testament or the New
Testament?



Why didn't someone call the police?

"Janet Baraclough.." wrote in message
...
The message
from "Vox Humana" contains these words:

"Janet Baraclough.." wrote in
message
...

Is that called the silver-ring pledge or some such? They've been on
a
mission over here fairly recently but I don't know what reception they
got.

I don't know about "silver-ring" but I can assure you that it is George
Bush's "silver lining" when it comes to generating votes among his
fundamentalist base. There are only two issues that concern the
religious
right - sex, and sex.

It's hard to imagine here. ISTR 10 % or less of the UK population
attend Christian church.

Janet.

In 1968, my parents took my sisters and I on a trip to Europe, which
included (as I recall) 45 minutes in England. My mother was a bit concerned
because television showed quite a bit more skin than was considered proper
here in the states. My conclusion: Your civilization is quite advanced. You
also gave the world Monty Python.

Ann wrote in
:

"Cindy" expounded:

mothers seeking abortions

Now there's an oxymoron for you. Women seeking abortions
are not mothers.

not necessarily true. accidental pregnancies occur in married
couples with children too, not just unmarried childless single
women ;)
if one has one or more children & can't afford another either
financially or emotionally, well, what they do is thier
business, no one elses. i don't see how a very personal
decision is *anyone's* business but the person making it (&
thier spouse/partner). i suspect that it's wiser to know you
can't handle/afford 2 or more kids born within 12-16 months
apart, than to have them & end up like what's-her-name in
Texas...
lee

"enigma" wrote in message
. ..
Ann wrote in
:

"Cindy" expounded:

mothers seeking abortions

Now there's an oxymoron for you. Women seeking abortions
are not mothers.

not necessarily true. accidental pregnancies occur in married
couples with children too, not just unmarried childless single
women ;)
if one has one or more children & can't afford another either
financially or emotionally, well, what they do is thier
business, no one elses. i don't see how a very personal
decision is *anyone's* business but the person making it (&
thier spouse/partner). i suspect that it's wiser to know you
can't handle/afford 2 or more kids born within 12-16 months
apart, than to have them & end up like what's-her-name in
Texas...
lee

Look out. Here comes the "how about adoption" nonsense, as if THAT is a
panacea.

dykerider wrote:

"Helen Crames" wrote in message
news:pgBUc.276159$%_6.32608@attbi_s01...

Isn't abortion much more expensive than birth control?

Helen

Not if the government pays for it.

Why should the government pay for it?

Sheila

"Sheila" wrote in message
...


dykerider wrote:

"Helen Crames" wrote in message
news:pgBUc.276159$%_6.32608@attbi_s01...

Isn't abortion much more expensive than birth control?

Helen

Not if the government pays for it.

Why should the government pay for it?


Its a red herring argument. It appeals to people who want to denigrate what
they perceive as a "welfare class." While most people on public assistance
are white, "welfare queen" (i.e., "the government pays for it") is code for
"unmarried, black woman with children." While I know that OP will strongly
protest, that statement has racist as well as classist overtones. It also
tries to assert that the government SHOULDN'T" pay for a legal medical
procedure because it is against a particular religious point of view. The
neo-conservative agenda doesn't accept the role of government in any way
that doesn't involve the defense industry or war. Therefore, this is a
trifecta of insults.

"Vox Humana" wrote in message
...

"Sheila" wrote in message
...


dykerider wrote:

"Helen Crames" wrote in message
news:pgBUc.276159$%_6.32608@attbi_s01...

Isn't abortion much more expensive than birth control?

Helen

Not if the government pays for it.

Why should the government pay for it?


Its a red herring argument. It appeals to people who want to denigrate
what
they perceive as a "welfare class." While most people on public
assistance
are white, "welfare queen" (i.e., "the government pays for it") is code
for
"unmarried, black woman with children." While I know that OP will
strongly
protest, that statement has racist as well as classist overtones. It also
tries to assert that the government SHOULDN'T" pay for a legal medical
procedure because it is against a particular religious point of view. The
neo-conservative agenda doesn't accept the role of government in any way
that doesn't involve the defense industry or war. Therefore, this is a
trifecta of insults.



The NeoCons don't want the government paying for abortion because it
acknowledges the existence of sex for purposes other than procreation. Uh
oh.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Vox Humana" wrote in message
...

"Sheila" wrote in message
...


dykerider wrote:

"Helen Crames" wrote in message
news:pgBUc.276159$%_6.32608@attbi_s01...

Isn't abortion much more expensive than birth control?

Helen

Not if the government pays for it.

Why should the government pay for it?


Its a red herring argument. It appeals to people who want to denigrate
what
they perceive as a "welfare class." While most people on public
assistance
are white, "welfare queen" (i.e., "the government pays for it") is code
for
"unmarried, black woman with children." While I know that OP will
strongly
protest, that statement has racist as well as classist overtones. It
also
tries to assert that the government SHOULDN'T" pay for a legal medical
procedure because it is against a particular religious point of view.
The
neo-conservative agenda doesn't accept the role of government in any way
that doesn't involve the defense industry or war. Therefore, this is a
trifecta of insults.



The NeoCons don't want the government paying for abortion because it
acknowledges the existence of sex for purposes other than procreation. Uh
oh.

They also see abortion as a way to dodge a bullet. The would rather see a
child born into a situation where they are not wanted or where there are too
few resources to adequately provide for their health and welfare. The child
would be a constant reminder to them and everyone else of the parent's
"immoral" acts - a modern equivalent to the scarlet letter. The abortion
derails this scheme.

"Janet Baraclough.." wrote in message
...
The message
from "Vox Humana" contains these words:

Doug said
Look out. Here comes the "how about adoption" nonsense, as if THAT is
a
panacea.


But wait. No adoption for gays or single parents.

You're very advanced over there. How do you identify which babies are
gay, and which will have just one child?


Over here in the land of Puritans, there are laws that prohibit the
adoption of children by gays and adoption by single parents is discouraged.

Vox Humana wrote:

"Sheila" wrote in message
...


dykerider wrote:

"Helen Crames" wrote in message
news:pgBUc.276159$%_6.32608@attbi_s01...

Isn't abortion much more expensive than birth control?

Helen

Not if the government pays for it.

Why should the government pay for it?


Its a red herring argument. It appeals to people who want to denigrate what
they perceive as a "welfare class." While most people on public assistance
are white, "welfare queen" (i.e., "the government pays for it") is code for
"unmarried, black woman with children." While I know that OP will strongly
protest, that statement has racist as well as classist overtones. It also
tries to assert that the government SHOULDN'T" pay for a legal medical
procedure because it is against a particular religious point of view. The
neo-conservative agenda doesn't accept the role of government in any way
that doesn't involve the defense industry or war. Therefore, this is a
trifecta of insults.

So, are you saying the Helen Crames was insulting dykerider?

You haven't answered the question, 'Why should the government pay for
it?'

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Vox Humana" wrote in message
...

"Sheila" wrote in message
...


dykerider wrote:

"Helen Crames" wrote in message
news:pgBUc.276159$%_6.32608@attbi_s01...

Isn't abortion much more expensive than birth control?

Helen

Not if the government pays for it.

Why should the government pay for it?


Its a red herring argument. It appeals to people who want to denigrate
what
they perceive as a "welfare class." While most people on public
assistance
are white, "welfare queen" (i.e., "the government pays for it") is code
for
"unmarried, black woman with children." While I know that OP will
strongly
protest, that statement has racist as well as classist overtones. It also
tries to assert that the government SHOULDN'T" pay for a legal medical
procedure because it is against a particular religious point of view. The
neo-conservative agenda doesn't accept the role of government in any way
that doesn't involve the defense industry or war. Therefore, this is a
trifecta of insults.



The NeoCons don't want the government paying for abortion because it
acknowledges the existence of sex for purposes other than procreation. Uh
oh.

It still doesn't make sense. The government doesn't have any money, it
is other people money that the government uses. Let people pay for what
they need and not take it from others, unless absolutely necessary,
which isn't often.

"Sheila" wrote in message
...


Vox Humana wrote:

"Sheila" wrote in message
...


dykerider wrote:

"Helen Crames" wrote in message
news:pgBUc.276159$%_6.32608@attbi_s01...

Isn't abortion much more expensive than birth control?

Helen

Not if the government pays for it.

Why should the government pay for it?


Its a red herring argument. It appeals to people who want to denigrate
what
they perceive as a "welfare class." While most people on public
assistance
are white, "welfare queen" (i.e., "the government pays for it") is code
for
"unmarried, black woman with children." While I know that OP will
strongly
protest, that statement has racist as well as classist overtones. It
also
tries to assert that the government SHOULDN'T" pay for a legal medical
procedure because it is against a particular religious point of view.
The
neo-conservative agenda doesn't accept the role of government in any way
that doesn't involve the defense industry or war. Therefore, this is a
trifecta of insults.

So, are you saying the Helen Crames was insulting dykerider?

You haven't answered the question, 'Why should the government pay for
it?'

If a person is eligible for government paid medical care, then it should be
considered no different than an other gynecological procedure. Many people
are covered by government plans including civil service employees, veterans,
and people covered by medical programs who work for low wages in positions
without private coverage. The question really should be, why would the
government exclude this procedure or simply "why not?"

Vox Humana wrote:

"Sheila" wrote in message
...


Vox Humana wrote:

"Sheila" wrote in message
...


dykerider wrote:

"Helen Crames" wrote in message
news:pgBUc.276159$%_6.32608@attbi_s01...

Isn't abortion much more expensive than birth control?

Helen

Not if the government pays for it.

Why should the government pay for it?


Its a red herring argument. It appeals to people who want to denigrate
what
they perceive as a "welfare class." While most people on public
assistance
are white, "welfare queen" (i.e., "the government pays for it") is code
for
"unmarried, black woman with children." While I know that OP will
strongly
protest, that statement has racist as well as classist overtones. It
also
tries to assert that the government SHOULDN'T" pay for a legal medical
procedure because it is against a particular religious point of view.
The
neo-conservative agenda doesn't accept the role of government in any way
that doesn't involve the defense industry or war. Therefore, this is a
trifecta of insults.

So, are you saying the Helen Crames was insulting dykerider?

You haven't answered the question, 'Why should the government pay for
it?'

If a person is eligible for government paid medical care, then it should be
considered no different than an other gynecological procedure. Many people
are covered by government plans including civil service employees, veterans,
and people covered by medical programs who work for low wages in positions
without private coverage. The question really should be, why would the
government exclude this procedure or simply "why not?"

Abortion used to be illegal in this country and now you think that
American citizens should pay for other people to have abortions. Oh,
what about the rights of the unborn child?

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 20:45:59 -0400, Sheila wrote:

(snip)
It still doesn't make sense. The government doesn't have any money, it
is other people money that the government uses.

Shhhh, better not tell the Democrats that. John Kerry might be struck
speechless. ;)
Hey, wait. That might not be a bad idea after all. ;)

"Janet Baraclough.." wrote in message
...
The message
from "Doug Kanter" contains these words:


"Janet Baraclough.." wrote in
message
...
The message
from "Vox Humana" contains these words:

There are only two issues that concern the
religious right - sex, and sex.

It's hard to imagine here. ISTR 10 % or less of the UK population
attend Christian church.

In 1968, my parents took my sisters and I on a trip to Europe, which
included (as I recall) 45 minutes in England.

Genetic hyperactive attention-disorder?

She believed in the tour bus method of travelling. As a result, I reject all
forms of organized travel groups & plans, other than calling ahead for
reservations. Thinking back to the trip, it was obvious that my parents were
in conflict over how to do things. In Rome, my father rented a car, picked a
road, and drove without having any idea where he was going. We ended up in
some tiny village and found the best damned restaurant imaginable. That's
more my style.




My mother was a bit concerned
because television showed quite a bit more skin than was considered
proper
here in the states.

My conclusion: Your civilization is quite advanced. You
also gave the world Monty Python.

We've advanced civilisation a whole lot more since then..wait till you
see Big Brother :-(

Yes. I've heard. You people need to get your guns back before it's too late.
Funny thought: In the future, you may find the IRA useful as a vendor of
last resort.

"Vox Humana" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Vox Humana" wrote in message
...

"Sheila" wrote in message
...


dykerider wrote:

"Helen Crames" wrote in message
news:pgBUc.276159$%_6.32608@attbi_s01...

Isn't abortion much more expensive than birth control?

Helen

Not if the government pays for it.

Why should the government pay for it?


Its a red herring argument. It appeals to people who want to
denigrate
what
they perceive as a "welfare class." While most people on public
assistance
are white, "welfare queen" (i.e., "the government pays for it") is
code
for
"unmarried, black woman with children." While I know that OP will
strongly
protest, that statement has racist as well as classist overtones. It
also
tries to assert that the government SHOULDN'T" pay for a legal
medical
procedure because it is against a particular religious point of view.
The
neo-conservative agenda doesn't accept the role of government in any
way
that doesn't involve the defense industry or war. Therefore, this is
a
trifecta of insults.



The NeoCons don't want the government paying for abortion because it
acknowledges the existence of sex for purposes other than procreation.
Uh
oh.

They also see abortion as a way to dodge a bullet. The would rather see a
child born into a situation where they are not wanted or where there are
too
few resources to adequately provide for their health and welfare. The
child
would be a constant reminder to them and everyone else of the parent's
"immoral" acts - a modern equivalent to the scarlet letter. The abortion
derails this scheme.



Yes - I know someone who thinks this way. He says the evil mother wouldn't
be in such a situation to begin with if she had "proper morals". When I
remind him that an otherwise non-evil mother could be the victim of a failed
condom, he says the solution is abstinence, but that the evil mother is
probably addicted to sex and wouldn't consider abstinence as an option.

"Sheila" wrote in message
...


Vox Humana wrote:

"Sheila" wrote in message
...


dykerider wrote:

"Helen Crames" wrote in message
news:pgBUc.276159$%_6.32608@attbi_s01...

Isn't abortion much more expensive than birth control?

Helen

Not if the government pays for it.

Why should the government pay for it?


Its a red herring argument. It appeals to people who want to denigrate
what
they perceive as a "welfare class." While most people on public
assistance
are white, "welfare queen" (i.e., "the government pays for it") is code
for
"unmarried, black woman with children." While I know that OP will
strongly
protest, that statement has racist as well as classist overtones. It
also
tries to assert that the government SHOULDN'T" pay for a legal medical
procedure because it is against a particular religious point of view.
The
neo-conservative agenda doesn't accept the role of government in any way
that doesn't involve the defense industry or war. Therefore, this is a
trifecta of insults.

So, are you saying the Helen Crames was insulting dykerider?

You haven't answered the question, 'Why should the government pay for
it?'

For the same reason the government pays for other medical procedures, like
hip replacements, or medication for childrens' ear infections. However, I'll
add this: The same government should also pay for health education which
would help minimize some health disorders, and said education should be
completely factual & not influenced by church committees.

My ex-wife's Unitarian church ran a series of sex ed classes which were very
explicit. They honored parents' wishes through a real high tech scheme which
involved typing and printing things on paper - quite revolutionary. All
parents were given VERY detailed copies of each week's lesson plan so they
could keep their kids out of certain classes if they wished to do so. Why
couldn't public schools do this, rather than have the typical all-or-nothing
wars which seem to be the hobby of the fundamentalists?

"Sheila" wrote in message
...


Vox Humana wrote:

"Sheila" wrote in message
...


Vox Humana wrote:

"Sheila" wrote in message
...


dykerider wrote:

"Helen Crames" wrote in message
news:pgBUc.276159$%_6.32608@attbi_s01...

Isn't abortion much more expensive than birth control?

Helen

Not if the government pays for it.

Why should the government pay for it?


Its a red herring argument. It appeals to people who want to
denigrate
what
they perceive as a "welfare class." While most people on public
assistance
are white, "welfare queen" (i.e., "the government pays for it") is
code
for
"unmarried, black woman with children." While I know that OP will
strongly
protest, that statement has racist as well as classist overtones.
It
also
tries to assert that the government SHOULDN'T" pay for a legal
medical
procedure because it is against a particular religious point of
view.
The
neo-conservative agenda doesn't accept the role of government in any
way
that doesn't involve the defense industry or war. Therefore, this
is a
trifecta of insults.

So, are you saying the Helen Crames was insulting dykerider?

You haven't answered the question, 'Why should the government pay for
it?'

If a person is eligible for government paid medical care, then it should
be
considered no different than an other gynecological procedure. Many
people
are covered by government plans including civil service employees,
veterans,
and people covered by medical programs who work for low wages in
positions
without private coverage. The question really should be, why would the
government exclude this procedure or simply "why not?"

Abortion used to be illegal in this country and now you think that
American citizens should pay for other people to have abortions. Oh,
what about the rights of the unborn child?

Although some fools believe abortion is a fun thing involving party hats,
and that the majority of women who have it done are repeat offenders, it'
really not that way at all. You know that. The legal availability of the
procedure is important because it acknowledges that more than men, women
often end up in situations where there's no other solution.

I know where this is going next, so you may want to think for a day before
responding the usual way and boring us all to death. Come up with something
other than what your (probably) male minister told you.

In article ,
Vox Humana wrote:


I don't know about "silver-ring" but I can assure you that it is George
Bush's "silver lining" when it comes to generating votes among his
fundamentalist base. There are only two issues that concern the religious
right - sex, and sex.


Bigot.

billo

"Sheila" wrote in message
...

money on things that YOU feel are necessary.

We would never agree on the function of government since we see it very
differently. Never did I say that people shouldn't be treated with
dignity, have access to a decent education, etc. As a matter of fact I
want all of that, I just disagree with you on how to get it.

Let me guess. You want to dismantle the EPA and subcontract the
environmental oversight to Halliburton.

"Sheila" wrote in message
...


Vox Humana wrote:

"Sheila" wrote in message
...


Vox Humana wrote:

"Sheila" wrote in message
...


dykerider wrote:

"Helen Crames" wrote in message
news:pgBUc.276159$%_6.32608@attbi_s01...

Isn't abortion much more expensive than birth control?

Helen

Not if the government pays for it.

Why should the government pay for it?


Its a red herring argument. It appeals to people who want to
denigrate
what
they perceive as a "welfare class." While most people on public
assistance
are white, "welfare queen" (i.e., "the government pays for it") is
code
for
"unmarried, black woman with children." While I know that OP will
strongly
protest, that statement has racist as well as classist overtones.
It
also
tries to assert that the government SHOULDN'T" pay for a legal
medical
procedure because it is against a particular religious point of
view.
The
neo-conservative agenda doesn't accept the role of government in any
way
that doesn't involve the defense industry or war. Therefore, this
is a
trifecta of insults.

So, are you saying the Helen Crames was insulting dykerider?

You haven't answered the question, 'Why should the government pay for
it?'

If a person is eligible for government paid medical care, then it should
be
considered no different than an other gynecological procedure. Many
people
are covered by government plans including civil service employees,
veterans,
and people covered by medical programs who work for low wages in
positions
without private coverage. The question really should be, why would the
government exclude this procedure or simply "why not?"

Abortion used to be illegal in this country and now you think that
American citizens should pay for other people to have abortions. Oh,
what about the rights of the unborn child?

There are lots of tings that used to be illegal. All that is irrelevant.
If you are eligible for benefits, then you should get them. If you don't
want an abortion, then don't get it. I ask you, what about the rights of
people who are living and breathing right now. Your side doesn't give a
rat's ass about that.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Vox Humana" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Vox Humana" wrote in message
...

"Sheila" wrote in message
...


dykerider wrote:

"Helen Crames" wrote in message
news:pgBUc.276159$%_6.32608@attbi_s01...

Isn't abortion much more expensive than birth control?

Helen

Not if the government pays for it.

Why should the government pay for it?


Its a red herring argument. It appeals to people who want to
denigrate
what
they perceive as a "welfare class." While most people on public
assistance
are white, "welfare queen" (i.e., "the government pays for it") is
code
for
"unmarried, black woman with children." While I know that OP will
strongly
protest, that statement has racist as well as classist overtones.
It
also
tries to assert that the government SHOULDN'T" pay for a legal
medical
procedure because it is against a particular religious point of
view.
The
neo-conservative agenda doesn't accept the role of government in any
way
that doesn't involve the defense industry or war. Therefore, this
is
a
trifecta of insults.



The NeoCons don't want the government paying for abortion because it
acknowledges the existence of sex for purposes other than procreation.
Uh
oh.

They also see abortion as a way to dodge a bullet. The would rather see
a
child born into a situation where they are not wanted or where there are
too
few resources to adequately provide for their health and welfare. The
child
would be a constant reminder to them and everyone else of the parent's
"immoral" acts - a modern equivalent to the scarlet letter. The
abortion
derails this scheme.



Yes - I know someone who thinks this way. He says the evil mother wouldn't
be in such a situation to begin with if she had "proper morals". When I
remind him that an otherwise non-evil mother could be the victim of a
failed
condom, he says the solution is abstinence, but that the evil mother is
probably addicted to sex and wouldn't consider abstinence as an option.

Yes, this same person probably worships Ronald Reagan who had a child with
Nancy about 5 months after they were married.

In article ,
Doug Kanter wrote:


She didn't say "Christians". She said "the religious right".

Right. All Christian Republicans. Sorry,
the "good ******/bad ******" distinction
didn't work 50 years ago, either. Bigots are
bigots, whether they make bigoted statements
about race or religion.


billo

I believe that subject was taking from one group to give to another.

"Sheila" wrote in message
...
I believe that subject was taking from one group to give to another.

You must be talking about Bush's tax reforms.

"Bill Oliver" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Doug Kanter wrote:


She didn't say "Christians". She said "the religious right".

Right. All Christian Republicans. Sorry,
the "good ******/bad ******" distinction
didn't work 50 years ago, either. Bigots are
bigots, whether they make bigoted statements
about race or religion.


You are under the mistaken assumption that the religious right has some
monopoly on Christianity.

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Sheila" wrote in message
...


Vox Humana wrote:

"Sheila" wrote in message
...


dykerider wrote:

"Helen Crames" wrote in message
news:pgBUc.276159$%_6.32608@attbi_s01...

Isn't abortion much more expensive than birth control?

Helen

Not if the government pays for it.

Why should the government pay for it?


Its a red herring argument. It appeals to people who want to denigrate
what
they perceive as a "welfare class." While most people on public
assistance
are white, "welfare queen" (i.e., "the government pays for it") is code
for
"unmarried, black woman with children." While I know that OP will
strongly
protest, that statement has racist as well as classist overtones. It
also
tries to assert that the government SHOULDN'T" pay for a legal medical
procedure because it is against a particular religious point of view.
The
neo-conservative agenda doesn't accept the role of government in any way
that doesn't involve the defense industry or war. Therefore, this is a
trifecta of insults.

So, are you saying the Helen Crames was insulting dykerider?

You haven't answered the question, 'Why should the government pay for
it?'

For the same reason the government pays for other medical procedures, like
hip replacements, or medication for childrens' ear infections. However, I'll
add this: The same government should also pay for health education which
would help minimize some health disorders, and said education should be
completely factual & not influenced by church committees.

So you believe in taking from one group to give to another, even to the
point of taking innocent lives.




My ex-wife's Unitarian church ran a series of sex ed classes which were very
explicit. They honored parents' wishes through a real high tech scheme which
involved typing and printing things on paper - quite revolutionary. All
parents were given VERY detailed copies of each week's lesson plan so they
could keep their kids out of certain classes if they wished to do so. Why
couldn't public schools do this, rather than have the typical all-or-nothing
wars which seem to be the hobby of the fundamentalists?


Well, when I grew up, parents taught their children about sex. I think
that is where it should be taught today too. Let schools teach real
subjects.