On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 11:29:07 GMT, Phisherman wrote:

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 04:43:47 -0500, Dan Hartung
wrote:

John A. Keslick, Jr. wrote:
The Bushs claim they truly believe in a free nation with freedom of
religion. Everyone welcome and treated equal. But wait, unless of course
you are gay. Then they say you are not welcome in this country to share
benefits of other religions.

To fully answer your question, could you post a picture of the Bush?


Here's one (and you can change it if you don't like it!)...

A change might be good, but the alternatives available might not be much of a
change(and if it is a change it might be a change for the worse).

"Cindy" expounded:

mothers seeking abortions

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

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

"Ann" wrote in message
...
"Cindy" expounded:

mothers seeking abortions

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

I guess you could make an argument either way depending on your view. I bet
that the people I see picketing Planned Parenthood would disagree.

Are you saying one can't be a mother, and then later in life seek an abortion?

"Dan Kaiser" wrote in message
...
Are you saying one can't be a mother, and then later in life seek an
abortion?

With some of the kids in our neighborhood, I think it would be tempting!

LOL I was, of course, referring to a subsequent pregnancy.

"Dan Kaiser" wrote in message
...
LOL I was, of course, referring to a subsequent pregnancy.

Yes, but if abortion could be retroactive ....

"Vox Humana" expounded:

Yes, but if abortion could be retroactive ....

I actually knew a guy who described himself as a poster child for
abortion ;-

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

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?

You do mean pro-choice. Cause nobody except a few lunatics are pro-abortion. The
term "pro-abortion" was coined by the anti-choice people (mostly white men) who
wanted to twist the political language to fit their purpose of taking reproductive
choices away from women.
I dont like abortion either, my choice and thankfully never had to come up to that
choice face to face.
Pro-choice people have to often be over the top and strident cause many of the
anti-choice people are crazy as hell, including gunning down doctors and threatening
women exercising their choice. I live in Milwaukee.... a hot bed of the anti-choice
nut cases.
Ingrid

Ann wrote:
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.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

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!