Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #61   Report Post  
Old 19-08-2004, 11:05 PM
Vox Humana
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Vox Humana" wrote in message
...

"Sheila" wrote in message
...


dykerider wrote:

"Helen Crames" wrote in message
newsgBUc.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.


  #62   Report Post  
Old 20-08-2004, 02:36 AM
Vox Humana
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #63   Report Post  
Old 20-08-2004, 02:43 AM
Sheila
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Vox Humana wrote:

"Sheila" wrote in message
...


dykerider wrote:

"Helen Crames" wrote in message
newsgBUc.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?'
  #64   Report Post  
Old 20-08-2004, 02:45 AM
Sheila
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Doug Kanter wrote:

"Vox Humana" wrote in message
...

"Sheila" wrote in message
...


dykerider wrote:

"Helen Crames" wrote in message
newsgBUc.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.
  #65   Report Post  
Old 20-08-2004, 03:11 AM
Vox Humana
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Sheila" wrote in message
...


Vox Humana wrote:

"Sheila" wrote in message
...


dykerider wrote:

"Helen Crames" wrote in message
newsgBUc.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?"




  #66   Report Post  
Old 20-08-2004, 03:40 AM
Sheila
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Vox Humana wrote:

"Sheila" wrote in message
...


Vox Humana wrote:

"Sheila" wrote in message
...


dykerider wrote:

"Helen Crames" wrote in message
newsgBUc.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?
  #67   Report Post  
Old 20-08-2004, 09:03 AM
The Watcher
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #68   Report Post  
Old 20-08-2004, 12:29 PM
Doug Kanter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #69   Report Post  
Old 20-08-2004, 12:31 PM
Doug Kanter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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
newsgBUc.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.


  #70   Report Post  
Old 20-08-2004, 12:39 PM
Doug Kanter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Sheila" wrote in message
...


Vox Humana wrote:

"Sheila" wrote in message
...


dykerider wrote:

"Helen Crames" wrote in message
newsgBUc.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?




  #71   Report Post  
Old 20-08-2004, 12:46 PM
Doug Kanter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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
newsgBUc.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.


  #72   Report Post  
Old 20-08-2004, 01:51 PM
Bill Oliver
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #73   Report Post  
Old 20-08-2004, 04:13 PM
Vox Humana
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #74   Report Post  
Old 20-08-2004, 04:15 PM
Vox Humana
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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
newsgBUc.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.


  #75   Report Post  
Old 20-08-2004, 04:17 PM
Vox Humana
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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
newsgBUc.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.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bradley method bush regeneration David Hare-Scott Australia 8 03-04-2003 03:32 PM
Planting new rosemary bush/shrub Anita Blanchard Gardening 1 04-02-2003 10:16 PM
Chilean Fire Tree/Bush Embothrium coccineum Mark or Travis Gardening 5 25-01-2003 07:21 PM
Bush's greedy pollutopn will hurt us all!!! jake alt.forestry 1 17-12-2002 10:09 PM
Bush plan eases forest rules Daniel B. Wheeler alt.forestry 0 28-11-2002 11:25 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:28 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Gardening"

 

Copyright © 2017