"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
********************************

"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.

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?

Sheila

"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.

"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.

"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.

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.

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?'

"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?"

"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?

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:17:12 -0400, Sheila
wrote:



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?

Sheila
Pay now or pay later, lots cheaper to abort than try to educate and
socialize an idjet

remove munged wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:17:12 -0400, Sheila
wrote:



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?

Sheila
Pay now or pay later, lots cheaper to abort than try to educate and
socialize an idjet

So, it's OK to abort a child?

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 20:51:59 -0400, Sheila
wrote:

So, it's OK to abort a child?

None of your business!

"Sheila" wrote in message
...


So, it's OK to abort a child?

You're probably OK with euthanizing a cat which, in your judgement, would
otherwise suffer from disease or old age. A life is a life.

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 20:51:59 -0400, Sheila opined:



remove munged wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:17:12 -0400, Sheila
wrote:



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?

Sheila
Pay now or pay later, lots cheaper to abort than try to educate and
socialize an idjet

So, it's OK to abort a child?

Yes, Sheila. People have abortions. That's their karma, not yours. Mind how
your own life is going and don't have an abortion if it goes against your
principles, but don't slide down the slippery slope of putting religious faith
or mix up your emotions with others' emotions.

Personally, I am not pro-abortion. I'm pro-choice. I would not now choose to
have one, but that's easy for me to say having had a complete hysterectomy.
However, I have my right to choose and have had that since I was about 15 years
old. Aren't there any more important issues in the world to direct so much
energy toward?

Why not do fundraiser's for kids in the United States who have nothing to eat
tonight. Did you know in the Ozark Mountains there are children who live
without running water or electricity? Have you ever been to a really poor
community? Maybe the effort you put in to help keep these kids alive is
misguided. Maybe you can go out and raise some money to help support these born
children, who are actually going to repeat the same thing their mothers did.
Have more babies who will have nothing...the beat goes on. Maybe your church
should take some of that money and instead of buying a bigger organ, can donate
it to these families who are so far out in the bush they don't know there IS a
welfare system. Yeah, it exists in America, believe it or not.

V





Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html