|
"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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:06 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter