Tom Daschle - make abortion safe, legal, and rare.
Joseph P. Belk
abortion. However, those who claim to be "pro-choice" have an absolute
obligation to join pro-life people in calling for those laws, within
the Roe v Wade context, that reduce the incidence of women being
deceived into making choices that are wrong for them. Every choice for
abortion that the woman honestly regrets, and would decide differently
if she could, is a blow to the continued existence of "choice" which
every "pro-choice" person must want prevented.
An interesting article from:
AgapePress Christian News Service
"AgapePress News Summary"
Jody Brown, Editor
P.O. Drawer 2440
Tupelo, MS 38801
URL: http://www.agapepress.org
...An advocate for the unborn says the State of Mississippi has seen a
decrease in the number of babies dying at the hands of abortionists.
Terry Herring, with the group Choose Life, says pro-life supporters
are excited about a number of factors that have contributed to saving
the lives of babies in Mississippi. She says there has been a drop
from about 8,000 abortions in 1991 to 3,500 in the year 2000. Herring
believes these changes are due to new laws addressing parental
consent, informed consent, and a 24-hour waiting period. In addition,
there are abortion clinics that are now closed in the Magnolia State.
Herring adds that last year the state passed a law banning the
University Medical Center in Jackson from performing abortions, except
in very rare and extreme cases.
###[end of excerpt]
Since Roe v Wade is still fully in force in Mississippi, legalizing
every abortion regardless of any reason not to have one, considering
only a woman's choice, it looks like Mississippi has provided a good
pattern for the nation to follow. The U. S. Congress should rush to
make these Mississippi laws into national laws. Performing medical
procedures in the absence of informed consent is medical malpractice
for which abortionists should lose lawsuits and licenses to practice.
Parental Consent : a minor child pregnant has the greatest conceivable
need for her parents' support. Barring the cases for which judicial
by-pass has been provided in Mississippi, a parent should make the
decision on behalf of a minor child, whether an abortion is warranted.
The only alternative is to make some other adult responsible for this
decision, since a minor _cannot_ make a legal decision of such
consequence. The most central element of informed consent is missing
when a minor undergoes abortion without the parents' consent. If a
sound reason exists to ignore the parents' role as legal guardians for
the child, let a court confirm such a reason.
Informed Consent: Every woman contemplating abortion must get full
information about the procedure, especially including the procedure's
likely negative effects on her physical and mental health. She also
must get full information (preferably including a real-time image) on
the current developmental level of the prenatal child she contemplates
paying an abortionist to kill. Justice requires this. The failure to
get this information to the woman contemplating abortion is criminal
medical malpractice. The common failure of abortionists to provide
sufficient factual information - they usually provide lies and
misinformation instead - should be the basis of malpractice lawsuits
that almost every woman with a history of abortion could win.
It seems clear that these measures actually enhance women's right to
choose by making more likely a mature and fully informed choice, which
will please everyone except the radical abortion advocates. Express
your support for meaningful choice on abortion nationally by voting
for the U. S. senators and representatives who will work to pass these
wholesome laws.
Tom Daschle is bottling up in committee and preventing floor votes in
the U. S. Senate on legislation like this for our nation. Let's wake
him up or get him out of the way - now.
Joseph P. Belk
******************************************************
"Why can't we love them both?...
Why can't we cooperate in giving [the pregnant woman]
all the information there is to be given from both sides
of this controversial issue? Why not fully informed consent?
Give her all the reasons for abortion? The law allows,
even requires this. But also give her all the reasons
for waiting, and most emphatically offer to her all of the
constructive alternatives that now exist. If our laws
continue to dictate that she be given that choice of life
and death for her unborn, at the very least that choice
should be a fully informed one. It should not just be
informed in terms of technical information. No, it should
also be a choice that is made in view of the fact that
there is a warm and loving alternative to the technical
quick-fix of abortion." _Why Can't We Love Them Both_.
Dr. & Mrs. J. C. Willke. 1997. Cincinnati, OH: Hayes
Publishing Company, Inc.
_Buy this Book_ Hayes Publishing Company, Inc.,
6304 Hamilton Avenue, Cincinnati, OH 45224
Phone (513) 681-7559
Love them both.
*******************************************************
Ray Fischer
>My own opinion on abortion is that there should be no "legal"
>abortion.
Thag's because you're an immoral control freak who needs to control
women's sexuality.
> However, those who claim to be "pro-choice" have an absolute
>obligation to join pro-life people in calling for those laws, within
>the Roe v Wade context, that reduce the incidence of women being
>deceived into making choices that are wrong for them.
Which is why you keep lying to women?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
U WERE A FETUS
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@newbolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:apvla1$4mr$1...@newbolt.sonic.net...
> Joseph P. Belk <jpb...@fuse.net> wrote:
> >My own opinion on abortion is that there should be no "legal"
> >abortion.
>
> Thag's because you're an immoral control freak who needs to control
> women's sexuality.
>
When are you going to stop accusing people of being control freaks who are
merely seeking to protect the lives of human beings?
And when are you going to call the Pro-Choicers immoral control freaks who
need to control a woman's sexuality?
Children's Legal
CHOICES!
Seems as though your bloodlust for dead baby bodies is beginning to show
through here...
The article that you removed here has been placed back into the thread.
JUST so people can read what you are REALLY opposed to--; women making
INFORMED CHOICES! NOT having abortion stopped, just making an INFORMED
choice about child death.
Seems as though you want all women ignorant... Hmmmm....
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@newbolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:apvla1$4mr$1...@newbolt.sonic.net...
Pat Winstanley
says...
>
> ...An advocate for the unborn says the State of Mississippi has seen a
> decrease in the number of babies dying at the hands of abortionists.
> Terry Herring, with the group Choose Life, says pro-life supporters
> are excited about a number of factors that have contributed to saving
> the lives of babies in Mississippi. She says there has been a drop
> from about 8,000 abortions in 1991 to 3,500 in the year 2000.
>
Oddly enough a drop in abortion numbers saves no babies whatsoever!
Pat Winstanley
>
> "Ray Fischer" <rfis...@newbolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:apvla1$4mr$1...@newbolt.sonic.net...
> > Joseph P. Belk <jpb...@fuse.net> wrote:
> > >My own opinion on abortion is that there should be no "legal"
> > >abortion.
> >
> > Thag's because you're an immoral control freak who needs to control
> > women's sexuality.
> >
>
> When are you going to stop accusing people of being control freaks who are
> merely seeking to protect the lives of human beings?
When are you going to protect human beings instead of non-human beings?
When are you going to protect all children rather than just the ones you
choose to protect?
Pat Winstanley
childre...@hotmail.com says...
> Wow there Ray, you're REALLY opposed to women being able to make INFORMED
> CHOICES!
>
By wanting the woman to have the *legal* choice of whether to end or
continue her pregnancy? Exactly how is that preventing a woman making an
informed choice?
You are the one who wishes to remove one of the legal options... what is
your excuse for attempting to CONTROL women by advocating forcing them
to either break the law or continue their pregnancies?
DavidBarnes
<mych...@mychoice.com> wrote:
What do you do for these "human beings" after they are born?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DavidBarnes
Children's Legal <childre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Wow there Ray, you're REALLY opposed to women being able to make INFORMED
> CHOICES!
>
> Seems as though your bloodlust for dead baby bodies is beginning to show
> through here...
>
> The article that you removed here has been placed back into the thread.
> JUST so people can read what you are REALLY opposed to--; women making
> INFORMED CHOICES! NOT having abortion stopped, just making an INFORMED
> choice about child death.
>
> Seems as though you want all women ignorant... Hmmmm....
So now you favor choice as long as it is informed?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
stevex (return email belongs to a spammer)
> >My own opinion on abortion is that there should be no "legal"
> >abortion.
>
> Thag's because you're an immoral control freak who needs to control
> women's sexuality.
What does that have to do with sexuality? This person's opinion has nothing
to do with control! The beleif about abortion that drives most
anti-abortionists is that abortion takes away the life of a child (a human
being), therefore they beleive the child's mother should not be aloud to
make the decision to destroy (murder, kill) that living child. By saying
such a statement, you are either avoiding the real reasoning of the
anti-abortionist either because it threatens your view or because you are
ignorant of the argument. Either way, making such a statement is quite a
statement about your own opinions.
Steve
stevex (return email belongs to a spammer)
> > > >abortion.
> > >
> > > Thag's because you're an immoral control freak who needs to control
> > > women's sexuality.
> > >
> >
> > When are you going to stop accusing people of being control freaks who
are
> > merely seeking to protect the lives of human beings?
> > And when are you going to call the Pro-Choicers immoral control freaks
who
> > need to control a woman's sexuality?
>
> What do you do for these "human beings" after they are born?
How about adoption?
stevex (return email belongs to a spammer)
INFORMED
> > CHOICES!
> >
>
> By wanting the woman to have the *legal* choice of whether to end or
> continue her pregnancy? Exactly how is that preventing a woman making an
> informed choice?
>
> You are the one who wishes to remove one of the legal options... what is
> your excuse for attempting to CONTROL women by advocating forcing them
> to either break the law or continue their pregnancies?
Pat, I suggest you go back a few articles to the origin of this thread. The
point of the original post was that women should be better informed of their
options AND of the reprecussions of each option. Regardless of your stance,
pro-choice or life, the original author believes you should agree with that
much. The only controvercial opinion he (the first author) expressed, that
some people might not agree with, was that this would lead to a reduction in
pregnancies.
Steve
>
Unit335
Answering a question with another question is improper dialogue. Pat posed a
question that called you on the floor, and you neglected to answer it, but
instead attempted to distort her words to corner her into the answer you
wanted. Nothing but a strawman.
Currently, women that make the initial choice to meet with a doctor to have
an abortion *ARE* informed. They are told their options: carrying to term
and then adoption or keeping the baby versus abortion. This is before the
procedure. The procedure and its risks are also discussed.
Regardless of what lies your ilk continue to promote, the women that opt for
an abortion have the very information that you are speaking of offering.
As for the adoption option: yes, there are lots of families waiting to adopt
a child, so long as it is a healthy, newborn, white baby. Figuratively
speaking, I don't see anyone standing in line to adopt a crack-addicted
black baby, or an inner-city, mexican five-year-old.
If you worthless fuckwads truly cared about the well-being of the child
rather than forcing your religion-based "punishment" on the mother, you
would devote your energies to altering the adoption laws to make it easier
on the mother and adoptive family to go through with an adoption. If you
really gave a shit, you would work hard to make *adoption* the preferred
choice with methods that have nothing to do with force.
Once you do that, then most abortions would likely never take place, and you
would have accomplished your goal without being a self-righteous control
freak.
I know these things because I was part of the decision where each was
chosen: one abortion, one adoption. The adoption was a legal pain in the
ass.
-Donald in Austin
"DavidBarnes" <da...@barnesco.com> wrote in message
news:021120020804462683%da...@barnesco.com...
Children's Legal
"DavidBarnes" <da...@barnesco.com> wrote >
> What do you do for these "human beings" after they are born?
>
The more appropriate question is, why do you want to KILL these human beings
BEFORE they're born?
Obfuscation, as practiced by the "choice" crowd to avoid the REAL issues is
the KEY of the Goebbles-speak propaganda routinely used by the
pro-child-death crowd.
Children's Legal
"Pat Winstanley" <ng_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
> You are the one who wishes to remove one of the legal options... what is
> your excuse for attempting to CONTROL women by advocating forcing them
> to either break the law or continue their pregnancies?
>
Never in my life have I seen so mnay brazen liars. Must mean that the
pro-child-death crowd is panicking. The whole article was about INFORMING
women about the TRUTH of abortion. And then they were STILL allowed to make
that decision. In letting them know the TRUTH about abortion, the rate of
child-deaths were dramatically reduced.
Seems as though the pro-child-death crowd DOESN'T WANT ABORTION REDUCED!!
The entire thrust of the article was reducing abortion through education,
not legislating it away. No wonder there hasn't been any legal challenge to
this. Then the EDUCATION portion would also have to be challenged, raised
as evidence, and the bloodlust, pro-child-death propaganda would finally be
exposed!!!
PS. I have to put the article back in below just so people can see what
it's all about. All of you "choice" folks seem to have a problem staying on
topic. Informed women, and an informed public will ultimately put an end to
this ludicrous child butchering we call "abortion".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Children's Legal
would like to see abortion eradicated. There are ALWAYS alternatives. YOU
may not like those alternatives, but I don't like abortion... So, if you
mean abortion (which I equate with killing a human), then I am opposed to
abortion.
Funny, when NARAL supported baby killer Daschle is talking about reducing
abortion, as a result of campaign ads in his state tying him to abortion,
tells me the general public is OPPOSED to abortion. Only a radical,
propaganda spouting, shrieking minority wants to continue this hideous
evil...
Let's make it more controversial, abortion is a SIN. It is a manifest EVIL
and only a very real SATAN could call over 40 MILLION abortions a
"choice"... Hitler BUTCHERED over 6 Million Jews, Stalin BUTCHERED over 20
Million Russians, and American Socialists have brought about the BUTCHER of
over 40 MILLION unborn.
And we wonder why we have a Social Security crisis? Who's going to PAY for
it? And we wonder why there are government spending problems? Where's the
TAX "revenue" going to come from?
There were over 40 MILLION who were butchered that could have dramatically
contributed....
"DavidBarnes" <da...@barnesco.com> wrote in message
news:021120020804462683%da...@barnesco.com...
stevex (return email belongs to a spammer)
> Currently, women that make the initial choice to meet with a doctor to
have
> an abortion *ARE* informed. They are told their options: carrying to term
> and then adoption or keeping the baby versus abortion. This is before the
> procedure. The procedure and its risks are also discussed.
Great, and if I go to a Ford dealership, I am sure they will tell me all the
information I need to reasonabley decide between a Ford and a Toyota. If
that is true, why is the information presented quite differently when I go
to a Toyota dealership? Are women REALLY given all the information in a
balanced way? Are they given all the information? Are they shown videos
like "the silent scream"? I bet they are not!
>
> a child, so long as it is a healthy, newborn, white baby. Figuratively
> speaking, I don't see anyone standing in line to adopt a crack-addicted
> black baby, or an inner-city, mexican five-year-old.
Not true. I have heard of and met many couples who chose an underprivileged
child. Not that being Mexican makes a child underprivileged. It's notable
that you identified these examples by race. You sound like you are racist;
are you? Are you Pro-white? Is the Arian race the "clean" one? Is
abortion a "cleansing" method to you?
-steve
stevex (return email belongs to a spammer)
> it's all about. All of you "choice" folks seem to have a problem staying
on
> topic. Informed women, and an informed public will ultimately put an end
to
> this ludicrous child butchering we call "abortion".
It's been practiced for years, including post birth abortion. People will
never put an end to it.
Perhaps it is possible, however, to REDUCE the occurences through education.
steve
stevex (return email belongs to a spammer)
"The Etobian" <the_e...@hNoOtSmPaAiMl.com> wrote in message
news:d268su08g7j218tpt...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 02 Nov 2002 18:08:58 GMT, "Unit335"
> <donald...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >As for the adoption option: yes, there are lots of families waiting to
adopt
> >a child, so long as it is a healthy, newborn, white baby. Figuratively
> >speaking, I don't see anyone standing in line to adopt a crack-addicted
> >black baby, or an inner-city, mexican five-year-old.
>
> crack-addicted ones.
Didn't you hear what was said??? It's not just unhealthy fetuses that
should be put out of their misery. We should also put an end to Mexican
babies, especially those who are going to be born in the city.
After all, let's get this straight. There are worse things than being Crack
addicted... You might also have to grow up non-Arian.
Ray Fischer
>> >My own opinion on abortion is that there should be no "legal"
>> >abortion.
>>
>> That's because you're an immoral control freak who needs to control
>> women's sexuality.
>
>When are you going to stop accusing people of being control freaks
When you stop being control freaks.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>> What do you do for these "human beings" after they are born?
>>
>
>The more appropriate question is, why do you want to KILL these human beings
>BEFORE they're born?
It seems that all the pro-liars can do is screech their hatred and lies.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>CHOICES!
Wow, you're REALLY a lying fanatic!
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
Of course you have. At the pro-lie rallies you attend.
That's where you learned to be such a brazen liar.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@newbolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
>> >My own opinion on abortion is that there should be no "legal"
>> >abortion.
>>
>> That's because you're an immoral control freak who needs to control
>> women's sexuality.
>
>What does that have to do with sexuality? This person's opinion has nothing
>to do with control!
Of course it does. Abortion opponents want to control women's
sexuality by forcing them to suffer for sex.
> The beleif about abortion that drives most
>anti-abortionists is that abortion takes away the life of a child
That's a lie. You actions show it to be a lie.
Abortion opponents don't do anything to protect fetuses. It is ALL
about making women suffer. Rather than make it easier for women to
give birth, you treat women like criminals and slaves.
Here's an example: Many times I have pointed out that abortion
opponents could prevent abortions quickly, simply, effectives, and
legally simply by paying women to give birth instead of get abortions.
Find a woman who wants an abortion and offer her cash to give birth.
But EVERY time I point out that fact, the pro-liars makes excuses,
change the subject, or argue that women might (gasp!) BENEFIT from
such an offer.
Sorry, but I consider the anti-abortion ideology to be based upon
Unit335
I'm not sure if we're on the same page or not. Obviously, I am pro-choice. I
am also pro-life. I do not live others' lives, therefore I am not at liberty
to make the demand of parenthood on another person. I worry enough about my
own family.
I sincerely feel the answer is in adoption. To make that option preferred,
you have to remove its roadblocks: i.e. the legal pole vaulting (not just
hurdles), the idea of the mother going back in a few years to strip the
child away from the adoptive parents, the child showing up at 20 years old
and demanding back child support, etc. These things can be remedied with the
law. For these things to take place (such as back child support) the law has
to permit it. You have to go to court to get back child support.
You cannot legislate a woman's decision to have an abortion. Abortion was
illegal for years; women just used coat hangers and back-alley doctors. All
Roe-v-Wade did was make it legal. That put it in the spotlight.
>>Etobian: "I would think far more healthy fetuses are being aborted than
crack-addicted ones."
This is a myth from white middle-class America. Look at the locations of
these clinics and their clientele. You'll see. Mary and I (my ex-wife) were
one of only three "white couples" out of a room of maybe 25 or 30 couples.
(I say "couples" as a rough working number. Some women came with another
woman, some women were alone, others had more than one person with them.)
I also used "crack-addicted" as a broad example. There was a recent article
in the Austin American-Statesman (Austin's newspaper) about two girls that
were adopted by a lesbian couple. These girls were seven (?) and twelve and
of mixed race. Religious people do what they can to stop gay couples from
adopting, which was part of the basis of the article. Mixed-race children
turn the stomach of many religious zealots.
Whites don't want blacks adopting white kids, for whatever reason. The
inverse on that also true. That's not 100%, obviously, but the percentage is
high enough to stifle efforts to do what we both consider part of the
solution. This also applies to other races.
My answer: I firmly believe that when people truly step up to the plate with
regard to contraception & sex education to young women rather than religious
rhetoric, real contraceptive answers (yes, many are available), and adoption
law streamlining at the federal level (for interstate purposes) you will
find that the abortion issue will mostly take care of itself from a
procedure standpoint. You'll still have the straggelers and "special case"
women, but you will have made the effort to offer a real solution.
THEN, the pro-life movement will have shown a legitimate concern for this
particular issue, and many of us on this side of the fence will support you
in your endeavors.
Until then, it is just hollow bullshit. "You won't trust them with a choice,
but you'll trust them to raise a child."
"The Etobian" <the_e...@hNoOtSmPaAiMl.com> wrote in message
news:d268su08g7j218tpt...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 02 Nov 2002 18:08:58 GMT, "Unit335"
> <donald...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >As for the adoption option: yes, there are lots of families waiting to
adopt
> >a child, so long as it is a healthy, newborn, white baby. Figuratively
> >speaking, I don't see anyone standing in line to adopt a crack-addicted
> >black baby, or an inner-city, mexican five-year-old.
>
> I would think far more healthy fetuses are being aborted than
> crack-addicted ones.
> >
> >If you worthless fuckwads truly cared about the well-being of the child
> >rather than forcing your religion-based "punishment" on the mother, you
> >would devote your energies to altering the adoption laws to make it
easier
> >on the mother and adoptive family to go through with an adoption. If you
> >really gave a shit, you would work hard to make *adoption* the preferred
> >choice with methods that have nothing to do with force.
>
> I agree with simplification of adoption laws. All for that. I can't
> see all the hoops that have to be gone through when it's extremely
> easy for most people to become parents on their own without
> demonstrating their competence to the government. However, one reason
> adoption is not an option is that many women fear their mistake will
> show up 20 years later at her front door.
Unit335
>>C.Lgl: "YOU may not like those alternatives, but *I don't like
abortion...*
So this IS all about YOU. What YOU want others to do, to satisfy what YOU do
or do not like. It is not about them making an informed choice that will
affect them and *their* lives.
You want to demand the decision, through law, because it's what YOU want.
Sounds like a control freak to me.
"Children's Legal" <childre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:s7Vw9.64285$dn3.2...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Pat Winstanley
> Subject: Re: Tom Daschle - make abortion safe, legal, and rare.
> From: "stevex \(return email belongs to a spammer\)" <poscomm...@libero.it>
> Reply-To: "stevex \(return email belongs to a spammer\)" <poscomm...@libero.it>
> Newsgroups: alt.abortion, talk.abortion, alt.feminism, alt.feminazis
>
> > > Wow there Ray, you're REALLY opposed to women being able to make
> INFORMED
> > > CHOICES!
> > >
> >
> > By wanting the woman to have the *legal* choice of whether to end or
> > continue her pregnancy? Exactly how is that preventing a woman making an
> > informed choice?
> >
> > You are the one who wishes to remove one of the legal options... what is
> > your excuse for attempting to CONTROL women by advocating forcing them
> > to either break the law or continue their pregnancies?
>
> Pat, I suggest you go back a few articles to the origin of this thread.
No need... have been following it.
> The
> point of the original post was that women should be better informed of their
> options
>
Absolutely. That doesn't alter the fact that a woman has NO legal choice
possible if abortion is illegal. And it is the legality of BOTH options
that the thread has moved to as well.
In any case, who, exactly, is objecting to the same amount of
information (verifiable objective information) being given on the risks
of BOTH abortion and term-pregnancy/birth?
I haven't seen *any* pro-choice person so objecting.
I have seen lots of anti-choice people wanting to suppress information
about the risks of taking a pregnancy to and through birth, pretending
(falsely) that this is far less risky than abortion. Hence trying to
PREVENT the woman having the information to make an informed choice (in
addition to trying to deny the woman a choice at all by making one of
the two possible options illegal).
The fact is that all the risks of abortion are *also* risks of term
pregnancy and birth. And the latter has some that abortion does not, as
well as those that are the same being more serious risks in the latter.
That is fact.
That is what some people (people who are anti-choice) want to suppress!
Pat Winstanley
childre...@hotmail.com says...
> Subject: Re: Tom Daschle - make abortion safe, legal, and rare.
> Newsgroups: alt.abortion, talk.abortion, alt.feminism, alt.feminazis
>
>
> > What do you do for these "human beings" after they are born?
> >
>
> The more appropriate question is, why do you want to KILL these human beings
> BEFORE they're born?
>
There are no human beings involved in a pregnancy before birth (except
for the pregnant woman). The status of human being begins as birth
completes.
Unit335
You sir, are a hysterical idiot. I'll address this one first:
>>Stevex: "You sound like you are racist; are you? Are you Pro-white? Is
the Arian race the "clean" one? Is abortion a "cleansing" method to you?
No, I am not a racist. I call a duck, "a duck." I don't sugarcoat the
problems and dance around them. For the record, I am American Indian. Go
fuck yourself. Now, please make sure to post your requisite vomit of "just
because you're indian doesn't mean you're not racist."
The child my ex-wife put up for adoption was all-white. The line to adopt
started to the left, three months before his birth. (The child was not mine.
She became pregnant from an affair.) BTW, the word is spelled "aryan." If
you're going to attempt an unfounded insult, at least make a vague attempt
to know what the hell you're talking about.
That said, I'll move on to the more reasonable points in your post.
>>Stevex: "Great, and if I go to a Ford dealership, I am sure they will tell
me all the information I need to reasonabley decide between a Ford and a
Toyota.If that is true, why is the information presented quite differently
when I go to a Toyota dealership?"
This is an "apples to oranges" comparison, not to mention a strawman
arguement. You have worded the question with a false analogy to get your
desired answer. As I put in one of my posts, I have been party to both
choices. Or are you implying a Japanese-vs-American style abortion? (Just
being as ridiculous as you....)
>>Stevex: "Are women REALLY given all the information in a balanced way?
Yes, they are. I've seen it with my own eyes. Have you?
>>Stevex: "Are they given all the information?
Define *all*. Did a doctor come out and talk to us about the Laws of
Thermodynamics and how they apply to not only to the structural integrity of
the building but the tools used in the procedure? No, he didn't. They didn't
offer any Cajun recipes nor information on housetraining a puppy, either.
Or are you implying that the doctor did not inform us that an incompetent,
self-righteous baffoon with a Bible was waiting outside to condemn us to a
hell we didn't (and don't) believe in? He (actually "she") missed that one,
too.
>>Stevex: "Are they shown videos like "the silent scream"?"
I would assume there isn't a soundtrack available on CD for this particular
movie.... To directly answer this question, just what, pray tell, is this
"silent scream video?" Religious propaganda? A puppet show? A video using a
camera up a woman's vagina?
More hysterics, most likely.
>>Stevex: "I bet they are not!"
I'll bet you're right. Know what else? I wasn't shown a video of the cyst
being surgically removed from my tailbone, actual footage nor religious
hysterics.
The clinics are not there to make the decision for the woman. They are
offerring a *requested* service within a controlled environment, with
qualified personnel in attendance. They put forward information to make sure
she knows her options. You need to get a grip on the actual workings of each
of the characters in this drama.
>>Stevex: "I have heard of and met many couples who chose an underprivileged
child."
And I would commend them. If there were more people like these, a huge
problem would resolve itself. Unfortunately, they are but a tiny fraction.
>>Stevex: "Not that being Mexican makes a child underprivileged. It's
notable that you identified these examples by race."
You are the person that indicated other races were underpriveleged. Perhaps
it is you that is the closeted bigot? Try reading my words in context, this
time without your head up your ass.
-Donald in Austin
"stevex (return email belongs to a spammer)" <poscomm...@libero.it>
wrote in message news:r2Vw9.14171$qD2.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Ray Fischer
>To: Stevex
>You sir, are a hysterical idiot. I'll address this one first:
Ably done, too.
[...]
>>>Stevex: "Are they shown videos like "the silent scream"?"
>
>I would assume there isn't a soundtrack available on CD for this particular
>movie.... To directly answer this question, just what, pray tell, is this
>"silent scream video?" Religious propaganda? A puppet show? A video using a
>camera up a woman's vagina?
It's pro-lie propaganda, soundly debunked, and so patently absurd than
only stupid people believe it. There's a rebuttal on Planned
Parenthood's web pages.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Children's Legal
> <poscomm...@libero.it> wrote: ...
> >> PS. I have to put the article back in below just so people can see what
> >> it's all about. All of you "choice" folks seem to have a problem staying
> >on
> >> topic. Informed women, and an informed public will ultimately put an end
> >to
> >> this ludicrous child butchering we call "abortion".
> >
> >It's been practiced for years, including post birth abortion.
>
Feminism and Abortion
Pro-choice arguments, the author says, reflect the ambitions, hypocrisies,
and contradictions of contemporary feminism.
by Martha Bayles
SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR has observed that "Roe v. Wade is on a collision course
with itself." Justice O'Connor was referring to medical advances since 1973
that make it easier both to destroy potential life and to preserve it. Her
meaning is vividly illustrated by those rare but disturbing cases in which a
second- or third-trimester abortion yields a living infant, which must then
be either killed or rushed to another part of the hospital for the latest in
neonatal care.
Children's Legal
Children's Legal
given all the information, why don't you PROVE they're not? The problem is,
no one is willing to challenge these laws because the information that would
be brought forward at trial would sweep the country and drive a nail in the
pro-child-death camp. So, prove them wrong... It should be simple, the
information is publicly available if you wish to do some research...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"stevex (return email belongs to a spammer)" <poscomm...@libero.it>
wrote
> > Currently, women that make the initial choice to meet with a doctor to
> have
> > an abortion *ARE* informed. They are told their options: carrying to
term
> > and then adoption or keeping the baby versus abortion. This is before
the
> > procedure. The procedure and its risks are also discussed.
>
Are women REALLY given all the information in a
Children's Legal
>
> >>C.Lgl: "YOU may not like those alternatives, but *I don't like
> abortion...*
>
> So this IS all about YOU. What YOU want others to do, to satisfy what YOU do
> or do not like. It is not about them making an informed choice that will
> affect them and *their* lives.
>
> You want to demand the decision, through law, because it's what YOU want.
>
> Sounds like a control freak to me.
>
Adam H.
Either you want them to be given balanced, accurate information, or
you want to show them biased, unfactual movies like "The Silent
Scream." You can't have both.
I would guess you'd rather lie to women to prevent them exercising
their choice rather than present them with unbiased information and
let them do the choosing. Anybody who would present "The Silent
Scream" as fact wouldn't hesitate to lie further.
---
Give a man a fish and he'll ask for a lemon and some
butter. Teach a man to fish and he'll leave work
early on Friday.
Children's Legal
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DavidBarnes
email belongs to a spammer\ <poscomm...@libero.it> wrote:
> > > > >My own opinion on abortion is that there should be no "legal"
> > > > >abortion.
> > > >
> > > > Thag's because you're an immoral control freak who needs to control
> > > > women's sexuality.
> > > >
> > >
> > > When are you going to stop accusing people of being control freaks who
> are
> > > merely seeking to protect the lives of human beings?
> > > And when are you going to call the Pro-Choicers immoral control freaks
> who
> > > need to control a woman's sexuality?
> >
> > What do you do for these "human beings" after they are born?
>
> How about adoption?
For one thing, they don't adopted. They end up sitting around without
parents.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DavidBarnes
Children's Legal <childre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "DavidBarnes" <da...@barnesco.com> wrote >
> > What do you do for these "human beings" after they are born?
> >
>
> The more appropriate question is, why do you want to KILL these human beings
> BEFORE they're born?
Thats called ducking the question.
>
> Obfuscation, as practiced by the "choice" crowd to avoid the REAL issues is
> the KEY of the Goebbles-speak propaganda routinely used by the
> pro-child-death crowd.
You duck the question because the answer would embarrass you.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DavidBarnes
<donald...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> To DavidBarnes
>
> Answering a question with another question is improper dialogue. Pat posed a
> question that called you on the floor, and you neglected to answer it, but
> instead attempted to distort her words to corner her into the answer you
> wanted. Nothing but a strawman.
where is the question in "Seems as though you want all women
ignorant... Hmmmm...."?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit335
The clinic "we" went to was in Houston, Texas. Roughly where Chimney Rock
meets I59 South. Just inside one of the "rougher" parts of town. Here in
Austin, the two Family Planning Clinics that I know of are in predominantly
black and Hispanic areas. I do not know if they perform abortions in those
clinics.
The mother of a friend in San Antonio worked in the lab of a clinic. Her
name was Carol. I've known Carol for over twenty years, since her daughter
(Cyndi) and I went to school together. To me, her word is credible. Carol
has told me stories of the hypocrites picketting the clinic, that would
knock on the back door after hours and ask for the doctor to "take care" of
their own daughter. Made me want to puke.
I couldn't say about those in Mattapan or Roxbury. I'm not familiar with
those areas.
-Donald in Austin
P.S. I will assume from your lack of protest toward the rest of my post that
either (1) you didn't have time to answer; or (2) I hit close to the mark.
Curious to know which it was.
-D.
"The Etobian" <the_e...@hNoOtSmPaAiMl.com> wrote in message
news:h2f8suc3irgba1ur8...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 02 Nov 2002 19:23:11 GMT, "Unit335"
> <donald...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >This is a myth from white middle-class America. Look at the locations of
> >these clinics and their clientele. You'll see. Mary and I (my ex-wife)
were
> >one of only three "white couples" out of a room of maybe 25 or 30
couples.
> >(I say "couples" as a rough working number. Some women came with another
> >woman, some women were alone, others had more than one person with them.)
>
> Where are clinics around here? Do you see them in Mattapan or
> Roxbury, which have predominantly black populations, or in Brookline,
> which is lily white and filthy rich?
>
Unit335
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@newbolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:aq1eni$hgj$1...@newbolt.sonic.net...
Unit335
given all the information in a balanced way? Are they given all the
information? Are they shown videos like "the silent scream"? I bet they
are not!"
This stupid shit has already been addressed here:
news:IiWw9.264074$Fw2.7...@twister.austin.rr.com
-Best Regards
"Children's Legal" <childre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BxXw9.64488$dn3.2...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Unit335
I've heard a lot of variations of this phrase, but yours has to be the best
of them:
"Give a man a fish and he'll ask for a lemon and some butter. Teach a man to
fish and he'll leave work early on Friday."
That cracked me up...
-Donald in Austin
"Adam H." <ahot...@removethis.shadowplay.net> wrote in message
news:jnh8sukc18jccn17k...@4ax.com...
Adam H.
<donald...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>Adam:
>
>I've heard a lot of variations of this phrase, but yours has to be the best
>of them:
>
>"Give a man a fish and he'll ask for a lemon and some butter. Teach a man to
>fish and he'll leave work early on Friday."
>
>That cracked me up...
>-Donald in Austin
Thanks. Feel free to take and use, if you like.
stevex (return email belongs to a spammer)
You are mistaken!
"DavidBarnes" <da...@barnesco.com> wrote in message
news:021120021530030334%da...@barnesco.com...
stevex (return email belongs to a spammer)
Um. Am I blind? I see no sign of hatred OR lies in that comment.
-steve
stevex (return email belongs to a spammer)
> for the pregnant woman). The status of human being begins as birth
> completes.
That is a matter of opinion to some. But would that not mean my nephew, who
was premature is not a human? Oh wait, I guess passing through a vagina
made him human? Too bad I cannot remember if he was a c-section baby. What
happens then? Isn't this kind of like racism? I mean, there is a life with
human genes, but you say it is not human. I do not understand.
-steve
stevex (return email belongs to a spammer)
> In article <fYUw9.64277$dn3.2...@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
> Children's Legal <childre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "DavidBarnes" <da...@barnesco.com> wrote >
> > > What do you do for these "human beings" after they are born?
> > >
> >
> > The more appropriate question is, why do you want to KILL these human
beings
> > BEFORE they're born?
>
> Thats called ducking the question.
>
> >
> > Obfuscation, as practiced by the "choice" crowd to avoid the REAL issues
is
> > the KEY of the Goebbles-speak propaganda routinely used by the
> > pro-child-death crowd.
>
>
> You duck the question because the answer would embarrass you.
>
-steve
Unit335
"Children's Legal" <childre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3FXw9.64490$dn3.2...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
stevex (return email belongs to a spammer)
> U WERE A FETUS <mych...@mychoice.com> wrote:
> >"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@newbolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
>
> >> >My own opinion on abortion is that there should be no "legal"
> >> >abortion.
> >>
> >> women's sexuality.
> >
> >When are you going to stop accusing people of being control freaks
>
>
Where was the control attempt?
stevex (return email belongs to a spammer)
> > point of the original post was that women should be better informed of
their
> > options
> >
>
> Absolutely. That doesn't alter the fact that a woman has NO legal choice
> possible if abortion is illegal. And it is the legality of BOTH options
> that the thread has moved to as well.
>
> In any case, who, exactly, is objecting to the same amount of
> information (verifiable objective information) being given on the risks
> of BOTH abortion and term-pregnancy/birth?
>
> I haven't seen *any* pro-choice person so objecting.
>
> I have seen lots of anti-choice people wanting to suppress information
> about the risks of taking a pregnancy to and through birth, pretending
> (falsely) that this is far less risky than abortion. Hence trying to
> PREVENT the woman having the information to make an informed choice (in
> addition to trying to deny the woman a choice at all by making one of
> the two possible options illegal).
>
I have a question. What about a conjoined twin? Can he kill his brother if
it means freedom for him/her? After all, pro choice means terminating a
life that is part of your body. It is saying, I don't want you to be a part
of me anymore, so I have the right to kill you. What's even more lenient
with the conjoined twin is that it is MORE than 9 months they have to be
together AND they share the exact same genes. If you don't want your baby,
put it up for adoption.
In all the "re-union" style episodes of talk shows, have you ever seen a
woman or her adopted child say they wished for a termination of the child's
life? I've only seen a couple, as I watch little TV, but I cannot imagine
that happening.
steve
stevex (return email belongs to a spammer)
"Karen Jarvis" <khja...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pj88susf866jbumvh...@4ax.com...
> "stevex \(return email belongs to a spammer\)"
> <poscomm...@libero.it> wrote: ...
> >> PS. I have to put the article back in below just so people can see
what
> >> it's all about. All of you "choice" folks seem to have a problem
staying
> >on
> >> topic. Informed women, and an informed public will ultimately put an
end
> >to
> >> this ludicrous child butchering we call "abortion".
> >
> >It's been practiced for years, including post birth abortion.
>
> URL for this "post birth abortion" please.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22post+birth+abortio
n%22&sa=N&tab=gw
Though I think someone should already have told you about that one... It is
called a "Search Engine".
Unit335
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ABORTION/silentscream.htm
-Donald in Austin
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@newbolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:aq1eni$hgj$1...@newbolt.sonic.net...
Unit335
Here is Pat's question that you seem to have overlooked:
>>Pat Winstanley: "By wanting the woman to have the *legal* choice of
whether to end or
continue her pregnancy? Exactly how is that preventing a woman making an
informed choice?"
>>"what is your excuse for attempting to CONTROL women by advocating forcing
them
to either break the law or continue their pregnancies?"
I don't know that she had asked it of you directly, but you appear to have
responded to it. Following this many threads at once made it difficult at
best to determine "who" asked "what" directly of "whom."
-Donald in Austin
"DavidBarnes" <da...@barnesco.com> wrote in message
news:021120021534467262%da...@barnesco.com...
DavidBarnes
email belongs to a spammer\ <poscomm...@libero.it> wrote:
> Are you really thinking there is a lack of parents looking for Newborns????
> You are mistaken!
No - you are mistaken. If the child is white, young, and healthy,
there is not a problem. Otherwise - no chance.
How many little black, or asian, or Native American, or Hispanic
children who are unhealthy have you adopted?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit335
"Children's Legal" <childre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:KIXw9.64492$dn3.2...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
stevex (return email belongs to a spammer)
> there is not a problem. Otherwise - no chance.
>
> How many little black, or asian, or Native American, or Hispanic
> children who are unhealthy have you adopted?
>
stevex (return email belongs to a spammer)
> woman or her adopted child say they wished for a termination of the
child's
> life? I've only seen a couple, as I watch little TV, but I cannot imagine
> that happening.
stevex (return email belongs to a spammer)
> "stevex \(return email belongs to a spammer\)"
> <poscomm...@libero.it> wrote: ...
> >
> >"Karen Jarvis" <khja...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:pj88susf866jbumvh...@4ax.com...
> >> "stevex \(return email belongs to a spammer\)"
> >> <poscomm...@libero.it> wrote: ...
> >> >> PS. I have to put the article back in below just so people can see
> >what
> >> >> it's all about. All of you "choice" folks seem to have a problem
> >staying
> >> >on
> >> >> topic. Informed women, and an informed public will ultimately put
an
> >end
> >> >to
> >> >> this ludicrous child butchering we call "abortion".
> >> >
> >> >It's been practiced for years, including post birth abortion.
> >>
> >> URL for this "post birth abortion" please.
> >Sure...
>
>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22post+birth+aborti
o
> >n%22&sa=N&tab=gw
>
> doesn't exist......but thanks for the laugh!
Language is a funny thing; It evolves. When people start using a term, it
becomes a term that has meaning. The meaning that this particular term has
come to mean to most people is the destruction of an unwanted human life -
post birth. That is why there are so many people that use the term.. click
the link oh wise one.
As someone who cannot see that the side of the vagina a child is on makes a
difference when killing a child, I personally feel it is an accurate term.
-steve
stevex (return email belongs to a spammer)
>I Love it Ray!! The fact that the "CHOICE" (child-death) crowd has been
reduced to name calling, means there is NO SUBSTANCE >to the stand for baby
killing that we call "abortion" which has been propagandized as "choice"...
Substance.... Hmmm.. Um, woman's rights to kill a child so they ain't stuck
with it! Uh yeah. After all, um, a baby shouldn't have rights to, um,
live? Yeah, because the mother is like older and knows what is best for the
baby right? Yeah, cause like there is scientific evident that exists, I
think, that um, says that the baby isn't human until like it's breathing air
or something.
David Barnes
OK. So what, in your mind, makes them human?
David Barnes
email belongs to a spammer\ <poscomm...@libero.it> wrote:
> "Ray Fischer" <rfis...@newbolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:aq17s3$akk$1...@newbolt.sonic.net...
> > U WERE A FETUS <mych...@mychoice.com> wrote:
> > >"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@newbolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
> > >> Joseph P. Belk <jpb...@fuse.net> wrote:
> >
> > >> >My own opinion on abortion is that there should be no "legal"
> > >> >abortion.
> > >>
> > >> That's because you're an immoral control freak who needs to control
> > >> women's sexuality.
> > >
> > >When are you going to stop accusing people of being control freaks
> >
> > When you stop being control freaks.
> >
> Where was the control attempt?
You don't find forcing a woman to give birth against her will a little
controlling?
Children's Legal
So, prove them wrong... It should be simple, the
information is publicly available if you wish to do some research...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Adam H." <ahot...@removethis.shadowplay.net> wrote in message
news:jnh8sukc18jccn17k...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 02 Nov 2002 21:34:25 GMT, "Children's Legal"
> <childre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >So Steve, rather than you becoming an "expert" who supposes they're NOT
> >given all the information, why don't you PROVE they're not? The problem
is,
> >no one is willing to challenge these laws because the information that
would
> >be brought forward at trial would sweep the country and drive a nail in
the
> >pro-child-death camp. So, prove them wrong... It should be simple, the
> >information is publicly available if you wish to do some research...
> >
> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >"stevex (return email belongs to a spammer)" <poscomm...@libero.it>
> >wrote
> >
> >> > Currently, women that make the initial choice to meet with a doctor
to
> >> have
David Barnes
Children's Legal <childre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Never in my life have I seen so mnay brazen liars. Must mean that the
> pro-child-death crowd is panicking. The whole article was about INFORMING
> women about the TRUTH of abortion. And then they were STILL allowed to make
> that decision. In letting them know the TRUTH about abortion, the rate of
> child-deaths were dramatically reduced.
They are told the truth. Give it a break. It is YOU who deceives.
Why claim women aren't told the truth?
>
> Seems as though the pro-child-death crowd DOESN'T WANT ABORTION REDUCED!!
And how did you come up with THAT brilliant conclusion? Is it because
we oppose contraceptives? Oh, wait. That is the conservatives. Is it
because we oppose sex education is school? No thatąs the
conservatives, too. I know, itąs because we want schools to refrain
from giving out free condoms. Hmmm. No again. That would be the
conservatives.
> The entire thrust of the article was reducing abortion through education,
> not legislating it away. No wonder there hasn't been any legal challenge to
> this. Then the EDUCATION portion would also have to be challenged, raised
> as evidence, and the bloodlust, pro-child-death propaganda would finally be
> exposed!!!
What education is that? Specifically what would YOU suggest?
>
> PS. I have to put the article back in below just so people can see what
> it's all about. All of you "choice" folks seem to have a problem staying on
> topic. Informed women, and an informed public will ultimately put an end to
> this ludicrous child butchering we call "abortion".
I know. Were you think we should "educate" them about God?
Children's Legal
effect of abortion, can a REAL "choice" be made.
There is no "choice" when the options are not fully developed and explored.
And the pro-abortion crowd (who have renamed abortion "choice") simply want
to keep women IGNORANT. Choice to the pro-abortion crowd only seems to mean
one thing --; abortion. There are no other "choices" to choose from...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
...An advocate for the unborn says the State of Mississippi has seen a
decrease in the number of babies dying at the hands of abortionists.
Terry Herring, with the group Choose Life, says pro-life supporters
are excited about a number of factors that have contributed to saving
the lives of babies in Mississippi. She says there has been a drop
from about 8,000 abortions in 1991 to 3,500 in the year 2000. Herring
believes these changes are due to new laws addressing parental
consent, informed consent, and a 24-hour waiting period. In addition,
there are abortion clinics that are now closed in the Magnolia State.
Herring adds that last year the state passed a law banning the
University Medical Center in Jackson from performing abortions, except
in very rare and extreme cases.
###[end of excerpt]
Since Roe v Wade is still fully in force in Mississippi, legalizing
every abortion regardless of any reason not to have one, considering
only a woman's choice, it looks like Mississippi has provided a good
pattern for the nation to follow. The U. S. Congress should rush to
make these Mississippi laws into national laws. Performing medical
procedures in the absence of informed consent is medical malpractice
for which abortionists should lose lawsuits and licenses to practice.
Parental Consent : a minor child pregnant has the greatest conceivable
need for her parents' support. Barring the cases for which judicial
by-pass has been provided in Mississippi, a parent should make the
decision on behalf of a minor child, whether an abortion is warranted.
The only alternative is to make some other adult responsible for this
decision, since a minor _cannot_ make a legal decision of such
consequence. The most central element of informed consent is missing
when a minor undergoes abortion without the parents' consent. If a
sound reason exists to ignore the parents' role as legal guardians for
the child, let a court confirm such a reason.
Informed Consent: Every woman contemplating abortion must get full
information about the procedure, especially including the procedure's
likely negative effects on her physical and mental health. She also
must get full information (preferably including a real-time image) on
the current developmental level of the prenatal child she contemplates
paying an abortionist to kill. Justice requires this. The failure to
get this information to the woman contemplating abortion is criminal
medical malpractice. The common failure of abortionists to provide
sufficient factual information - they usually provide lies and
misinformation instead - should be the basis of malpractice lawsuits
that almost every woman with a history of abortion could win.
It seems clear that these measures actually enhance women's right to
choose by making more likely a mature and fully informed choice, which
will please everyone except the radical abortion advocates. Express
your support for meaningful choice on abortion nationally by voting
for the U. S. senators and representatives who will work to pass these
wholesome laws.
Tom Daschle is bottling up in committee and preventing floor votes in
the U. S. Senate on legislation like this for our nation. Let's wake
him up or get him out of the way - now.
An interesting article from:
AgapePress Christian News Service
"AgapePress News Summary"
Jody Brown, Editor
P.O. Drawer 2440
Tupelo, MS 38801
URL: http://www.agapepress.org
David Barnes
email belongs to a spammer\ <poscomm...@libero.it> wrote:
> Are they shown videos
> like "the silent scream"?
It is a lie. Is that what you call "education?" Lies? Made up
prolife propaganda?
stevex (return email belongs to a spammer)
> stevex \(return email belongs to a spammer\) <poscomm...@libero.it>
>
> >> >My own opinion on abortion is that there should be no "legal"
> >> >abortion.
> >>
> >> That's because you're an immoral control freak who needs to control
> >> women's sexuality.
> >
nothing
> >to do with control!
>
> Of course it does. Abortion opponents want to control women's
> sexuality by forcing them to suffer for sex.
>
> > The beleif about abortion that drives most
> >anti-abortionists is that abortion takes away the life of a child
>
> That's a lie. You actions show it to be a lie.
>
> Abortion opponents don't do anything to protect fetuses. It is ALL
> about making women suffer. Rather than make it easier for women to
> give birth, you treat women like criminals and slaves.
>
> Here's an example: Many times I have pointed out that abortion
> opponents could prevent abortions quickly, simply, effectives, and
> legally simply by paying women to give birth instead of get abortions.
> Find a woman who wants an abortion and offer her cash to give birth.
> But EVERY time I point out that fact, the pro-liars makes excuses,
> change the subject, or argue that women might (gasp!) BENEFIT from
> such an offer.
>
> Sorry, but I consider the anti-abortion ideology to be based upon
> lies.
>
You never asked me that question! I think it might be a good idea. The
only thing I see wrong with it is people might get pregnant for a living
then it might become another problem. It's all theory though.
Now I can tell you, 60% or more of the babies born are female, and
eventually grow into women. I hope for their right to do so, and if that
means not wanting them to die before birth, then so be it. What an anti
abortionist is anti about isn't the loss of control over women, it's the
loss of life. What they disagree with you about isn't whether women should
be controlled, it's the existence of human life in the womb and/or the right
to take that life. Hitler thought he had the right to "cleanse" the people
of Jews and other "riff-raff", but others disagreed. Some see pro-choicers
as a cluster-bomb of Hitlers, others, like myself merely see them as mostly
well meaning people with a misinformed opinion. True, I get ticked when I
see people ignore what is obvious to me as simple reasoning and fact, but I
do know that most pro-abortionists feel the same way when their own facts
and reasonings seem to be ignored. I also believe, however, that there
persons with evil intent on both sides of the coin. There is a proverb
though that says men always believe, in their own heart, that they are
righteous. The debates stray off into name calling and everything else
because we search for the "Evil" because evil is easier to fight than good
intentions.
I assure you, my own intentions are not what you suggest about people who
are against abortion.
-steve
Adam H.
<childre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>So Adam, I'll issue the same challenge to you.
>
>So, prove them wrong... It should be simple, the
>information is publicly available if you wish to do some research...
"The Silent Scream" has already been debunked, over and over. There is
no factual basis in the film. Why keep on pretending that there is?
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ABORTION/silentscream.htm
All facts on this page can be checked and verified with any reputable
medical source.
Patrick L. Humphrey
>Etobian:
>The clinic "we" went to was in Houston, Texas. Roughly where Chimney Rock
>meets I59 South. Just inside one of the "rougher" parts of town. Here in
>Austin, the two Family Planning Clinics that I know of are in predominantly
>black and Hispanic areas. I do not know if they perform abortions in those
>clinics.
I've lived in southwest Houston since 1965, and if you're talking about the
clinic that's two blocks north of *US* 59 (it's not an Interstate yet, and in
the event it's designated as one, it'll be I-69) and just west of Chimney
Rock, I've dealt with the usual Saturday morning gaggle of picketers there at
one time or another in the past decade -- but that's not one of the rougher
parts of town by a long shot. (I live about three miles away from that
location, down 59 and a couple of blocks away from Sharpstown Center.) There
are three other clinics closer to me that do abortions, and a Planned
Parenthood location a couple of blocks away from one of those other three
clinics. The area in which they're located has progressed from mostly white
in the 1960s to a borderline between predominantly Hispanic and a little bit
of everything (to the west and south) at the start of the new millennium.
I've helped defend a couple of those clinics at one time or another over the
past decade or so, and I've seen the same thing: picketers coming back when
they thought none of their comrades were watching to get appointments. Some
things never change with the anti-aborts, and hypocrisy is one of those
things.
--PL"adding a data point or two for Baghdad on the Bayou"H
Bob
<poscomm...@libero.it> wrote in
news:ZG%w9.15060$qD2.1...@news20.bellglobal.com:
>
>> "Children's Legal" <childre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MsXw9.64485$dn3.2...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>>I Love it Ray!! The fact that the "CHOICE" (child-death) crowd has
>>been
> reduced to name calling, means there is NO SUBSTANCE >to the stand for
> baby killing that we call "abortion" which has been propagandized as
> "choice"...
Abortino-choice is not propaganda, it is a fact.
>
> Substance.... Hmmm.. Um, woman's rights to kill a child so they ain't
> stuck with it! Uh yeah.
Now you are really talking propaganda in the form of anti-choice rhetoric.
You know very well that no women has a right to kill a child because they
don't want to be "stuck with it". The ones that do that sort of thing go
to jail for murder if they are caught and prosecuted.
>
> to, um, live? Yeah, because the mother is like older and knows what
> is best for the baby right? Yeah, cause like there is scientific
> evident that exists, I think, that um, says that the baby isn't human
> until like it's breathing air or something.
>
Obviously, you are too stupid to know the difference between a fetus and a
baby. Why don't you try taking some night courses in human biology?
>
>
DavidBarnes
Children's Legal <childre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Here is some substance for you - duck...
>So where's the substance that
> abortion is GOOD for anyone?
Who said it was good for anyone - liar.
> Where's the substance about WHY abortion is
> necessary?
It is necessary when the woman thinks it is. She doesn't have to
report to you her reasons.
> Or do those questions make the pro-child-death crowd
> unconfortable.
You are on the wrong NG. This is the pro-choicers and the
anti-choicers. Who is pro-child-death? Don't tell me your argument is
SO WEAK that you need to distort our position.
> After all, abortion is nothing but a gateway to the real goal
> of infanticide... See it below, right from the mouths of those who are the
> strongest pro-"choice" (child-death) supporters.
If you are for these "lives" would you support the ultimate conclusion
of forcing women to give birth? Would you support higher government
taxes to help the children and mothers?
>
> How about some substance? Or is all you know about name calling?
Didn't you just call those who favor letting a women decide what to do
with regard to giving birth "pro-child-death?" Sounds like name
calling... Here is a name for you - HYPOCRITE.
> Is that
> the extent of the pro-abortion lobby? Name calling? Is there no SUBSTANCE
> to the reason for abortion? How about some reasons why over 40 MILLION
> abortions (in America alone) are necessary?
Lets see what you answers are. Or will it be more name calling?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Children's Legal
"Unit335" <donald...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message news:Vm%w9.253393$8o3.7...@twister.austin.rr.com...
DavidBarnes
Children's Legal <childre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Let's make it more controversial, abortion is a SIN.
How do you know this?
> It is a manifest EVIL
> and only a very real SATAN could call over 40 MILLION abortions a
> "choice"... Hitler BUTCHERED over 6 Million Jews,
Hitler was a conservative and a prolifer, at least when it came to
Germans.
> Stalin BUTCHERED over 20
> Million Russians, and American Socialists have brought about the BUTCHER of
> over 40 MILLION unborn.
>
> And we wonder why we have a Social Security crisis? Who's going to PAY for
> it? And we wonder why there are government spending problems? Where's the
> TAX "revenue" going to come from?
From all those poor children that were forced into the world and spend
their childhood on welfare with their mothers?
>
> There were over 40 MILLION who were butchered that could have dramatically
> contributed....
LOL!!! That is good. Kind of like - slave labor!
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Children's Legal
"David Barnes" <da...@barnesco.com> wrote in message
news:021120021851139834%da...@barnesco.com...
Children's Legal
"Unit335" <donald...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message news:Vm%w9.253393$8o3.7...@twister.austin.rr.com...
Children's Legal
>>C.L.: "I still wonder, what is the reason that many of those who post support abortion?"We don't, once again indicating your complete lack of understanding, or intentional misreprentation. We are pro-choice, not pro-abortion. Offer guidance, advice, information, etc, but the "choice" is left to the person that has to live with it: the mother.
stevex (return email belongs to a spammer)
Micropreemies are born amazingly even at less than 5 months old, and yet
survive into adulthood. I even remember seeing something about a child on
TV less than 20 weeks that lived for about an hour. And just because they
cannot live on their own (nor can 1 year old infants either mind you) some
people say they are not human. They deduce that when the scalpel starts to
slice their little bodies and they cry out with a silent scream, that it is
merely the nerves reacting. Some say that although they agree a life and
soul is in there, that this makes them not a human but no different than a
low-life animal until is outside the mother, and therefore can be killed as
easily and without conscience as a bug on the ground. Some feel that yes,
it is human, but because it hasn't experienced life, that killing it doesn't
make a difference.
I believe that YES it is alive. I believe that it IS human. It has human
legs, torso, head, brain, possible ears, fingers, feet, toes... GENES! Yes,
in our scientific standards, genetically speaking, it is a human. With all
the pain and fear reaction of the child while it is being killed, we should
deduce it is alive. I personally believe that taking a human life,
unformed, underformed, mal-formed, fully formed or even uninformed, is not
morally correct.
Thalidomide babies were born with parts that didn't grow past a few weeks of
pregnancy, yet their limbs are no less human than the rest of them.
-steve
stevex (return email belongs to a spammer)
Do you find putting a woman into jail because she neglected her infant is
too controlling? Without laws, there is no liberty.
I am curious to know what you think about female anti-abortionists?
DavidBarnes
email belongs to a spammer\ <poscomm...@libero.it> wrote:
First of all, you ducked the question. This probably means you haven't
ever adopted, which means you are a hypocrite.
As for me, there is a problem with the question. I never advocated
adoption, you did. That means it is none of you business if I have
adopted.
However, I don't mind saying I haven't adopted any. But again, that
means nothing as I don't advocate adopting children, and certainly not
as a method to make forcing women to give birth acceptable.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
stevex (return email belongs to a spammer)
Just show the abortion parts without any narratives. That's enough.
DavidBarnes
Children's Legal <childre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Are you saying any cell that is a cell from a Homo Sapien is a human
being?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
stevex (return email belongs to a spammer)
Have you seen the video? What part of it is a lie? Is it the part where
the baby cries out? Or perhaps it is the part where he/she tries to escape
the wrath of the surgeon? Oh wait, these clips were made BY the surgeon...
oh silly me.
DavidBarnes
email belongs to a spammer\ <poscomm...@libero.it> wrote:
> > OK. So what, in your mind, makes them human?
> Thank you. The same thing that makes a pre-mature baby human.
> Micropreemies are born amazingly even at less than 5 months old, and yet
> survive into adulthood. I even remember seeing something about a child on
> TV less than 20 weeks that lived for about an hour. And just because they
> cannot live on their own (nor can 1 year old infants either mind you) some
> people say they are not human. They deduce that when the scalpel starts to
> slice their little bodies and they cry out with a silent scream, that it is
> merely the nerves reacting.
That "silent scream" crap has been repeatly discredited. You best stay
away from it.
> Some say that although they agree a life and
> soul is in there, that this makes them not a human but no different than a
> low-life animal until is outside the mother, and therefore can be killed as
> easily and without conscience as a bug on the ground.
But that is opinion. We certainly have no proof of a soul. For
example, I don't believ we ever have a "soul." You can't use that to
claim a human exists as we can't establish it. By that, I mean,
perhaps a goat has a sould - is it human?
> Some feel that yes,
> it is human, but because it hasn't experienced life, that killing it doesn't
> make a difference.
> I believe that YES it is alive. I believe that it IS human. It has human
> legs, torso, head, brain, possible ears, fingers, feet, toes... GENES!
That is fine and I think you are entitled to you OPINION on it, but
that is all it is. We can't be passing laws forcing women to do things
against their will because YOU have an opinion about it.
> Yes,
> in our scientific standards, genetically speaking, it is a human.
Now we are getting somewhere. However, "scientific standards" do not
claim it is human being. It is called a fetus because that is what it
is. A human fetus. For example, a human sperm or human egg are not
human beings, right?
> With all
> the pain and fear reaction of the child while it is being killed, we should
> deduce it is alive.
Th evidence is that there is no pain. The "silent scream" is prolife
propaganda that has been disproved. It is important for prolifers to
stick with facts and not make things up if they expect to get anywhere.
This silent scream and pain claim only makes the prolife argument look
weak because it appears that the truth can't support the claims.
> I personally believe that taking a human life,
> unformed, underformed, mal-formed, fully formed or even uninformed, is not
> morally correct.
Then, if I were you, I would not have an abortion or become a a doctor
who might have to do an abortion.
>
> Thalidomide babies were born with parts that didn't grow past a few weeks of
> pregnancy, yet their limbs are no less human than the rest of them.
More opinion.
>
> -steve
>
>
>
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DavidBarnes
email belongs to a spammer\ <poscomm...@libero.it> wrote:
> "David Barnes" <da...@barnesco.com> wrote in message
> news:021120021852183734%da...@barnesco.com...
> > In article <Ja_w9.14742$qD2.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>, return
> > email belongs to a spammer\ <poscomm...@libero.it> wrote:
> >
> > > "Ray Fischer" <rfis...@newbolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
> > > news:aq17s3$akk$1...@newbolt.sonic.net...
> > > > U WERE A FETUS <mych...@mychoice.com> wrote:
> > > > >"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@newbolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
> > > > >> Joseph P. Belk <jpb...@fuse.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> >My own opinion on abortion is that there should be no "legal"
> > > > >> >abortion.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> That's because you're an immoral control freak who needs to control
> > > > >> women's sexuality.
> > > > >
> > > > >When are you going to stop accusing people of being control freaks
> > > >
> > > > When you stop being control freaks.
> > > >
> > > Where was the control attempt?
> >
> > You don't find forcing a woman to give birth against her will a little
> > controlling?
>
> Do you find putting a woman into jail because she neglected her infant is
> too controlling? Without laws, there is no liberty.
> I am curious to know what you think about female anti-abortionists?
I think that there are times when it is appropriate to incarcerate a
parent who abuses his/her child. That is not the case here.
As for female prolifers, I think they are twisted as male prolifers. I
think most don't really care about life or the child, if they did they
wouldn't support the programs they do that injure women and children.
I think, like male prolifers, they want to make abortion illegal for
other reasons that have nothing to do with life or children. Reasons
that are really quite sick.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
stevex (return email belongs to a spammer)
stevex (return email belongs to a spammer)
viewable in rather sketchy quality at
http://www.silentscream.org/
Does anyone know of a similar video done with endoscopy?
-steve
"stevex (return email belongs to a spammer)" <poscomm...@libero.it>
wrote in message news:q11x9.15136$qD2.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Ben Ferguson
> every abortion regardless of any reason not to have one, considering
> only a woman's choice, it looks like Mississippi has provided a good
> pattern for the nation to follow.
I really worry about the idea of a state basing ANY of it's laws off
of those in Mississippi (the same state that toyed with the idea of
making it illegal for a man to get wood in public whether clothed or
not(!))
> The U. S. Congress should rush to
> make these Mississippi laws into national laws.
That's a violation of the 10th amendment.
> Informed Consent: Every woman contemplating abortion must get full
> information about the procedure, especially including the procedure's
> likely negative effects on her physical and mental health. She also
> must get full information (preferably including a real-time image) on
> the current developmental level of the prenatal child she contemplates
> paying an abortionist to kill. Justice requires this.
Just make sure it's not propaganda.
> Tom Daschle is bottling up in committee and preventing floor votes in
> the U. S. Senate on legislation like this for our nation. Let's wake
> him up or get him out of the way - now.
Evidence please.
David Barnes
Children's Legal <childre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Wow there Ray, you're REALLY opposed to women being able to make INFORMED
> CHOICES!
He said you were lying. Is that your idea of informing them?
>
> Seems as though your bloodlust for dead baby bodies is beginning to show
> through here...
I thought we were talking about choice. It is you who is obsessed with
blood and death.
David Barnes
email belongs to a spammer\ <poscomm...@libero.it> wrote:
> Pat, I suggest you go back a few articles to the origin of this thread. The
> point of the original post was that women should be better informed of their
> options AND of the reprecussions of each option. Regardless of your stance,
> pro-choice or life, the original author believes you should agree with that
> much. The only controvercial opinion he (the first author) expressed, that
> some people might not agree with, was that this would lead to a reduction in
> pregnancies.
Not true. It is like advocating school children should be given the
"information" on creationism. Why do that? It is a lie! Telling
people lies does not educate them. Don't you see that?
stevex (return email belongs to a spammer)
-steve
"DavidBarnes" <da...@barnesco.com> wrote in message
news:021120021910037634%da...@barnesco.com...
David Barnes
email belongs to a spammer\ <poscomm...@libero.it> wrote:
> > > The
> > > point of the original post was that women should be better informed of
> their
> > > options
> > >
> >
> > Absolutely. That doesn't alter the fact that a woman has NO legal choice
> > possible if abortion is illegal. And it is the legality of BOTH options
> > that the thread has moved to as well.
> >
> > In any case, who, exactly, is objecting to the same amount of
> > information (verifiable objective information) being given on the risks
> > of BOTH abortion and term-pregnancy/birth?
> >
> > I haven't seen *any* pro-choice person so objecting.
> >
> > I have seen lots of anti-choice people wanting to suppress information
> > about the risks of taking a pregnancy to and through birth, pretending
> > (falsely) that this is far less risky than abortion. Hence trying to
> > PREVENT the woman having the information to make an informed choice (in
> > addition to trying to deny the woman a choice at all by making one of
> > the two possible options illegal).
> >
>
> I have a question. What about a conjoined twin? Can he kill his brother if
> it means freedom for him/her? After all, pro choice means terminating a
> life that is part of your body. It is saying, I don't want you to be a part
> of me anymore, so I have the right to kill you.
I say this so often it gives me a headache. The fact that you must
distort our position means our real position has merit. Why else
distort it? We don't do that to you. You do it to us because you want
us to sound extreme. We don't do it to you because we don't need to
make you sound extreme as your real position IS EXTREME.
DavidBarnes
Children's Legal <childre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Pat Winstanley" <ng_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>
> > You are the one who wishes to remove one of the legal options... what is
> > your excuse for attempting to CONTROL women by advocating forcing them
> > to either break the law or continue their pregnancies?
> >
>
> Never in my life have I seen so mnay brazen liars. Must mean that the
> pro-child-death crowd is panicking. The whole article was about INFORMING
> women about the TRUTH of abortion.
Speaking of lies...
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
stevex (return email belongs to a spammer)
"DavidBarnes" <da...@barnesco.com> wrote in message
news:021120022007208282%da...@barnesco.com...
You read that wrong. I said "neglected" as in refused to feed and clothe
the baby... refuse to take care of it's needs. After all, that is no
different than your excuse that a woman shouldn't have to carry the baby if
she choses not to.
>
> As for female prolifers, I think they are twisted as male prolifers. I
> think most don't really care about life or the child, if they did they
> wouldn't support the programs they do that injure women and children.
>
> I think, like male prolifers, they want to make abortion illegal for
> other reasons that have nothing to do with life or children. Reasons
> that are really quite sick.
>
You are wrong. At least I can say that absolutely is the case with me.
Susan C. Mitchell
<donald...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>>>Stevex: "Are women REALLY given all the information in a balanced way?
>
>Yes, they are. I've seen it with my own eyes. Have you?
>
>>>Stevex: "Are they given all the information?
>
>Define *all*. Did a doctor come out and talk to us about the Laws of
>Thermodynamics and how they apply to not only to the structural integrity of
>the building but the tools used in the procedure? No, he didn't. They didn't
>offer any Cajun recipes nor information on housetraining a puppy, either.
>
>Or are you implying that the doctor did not inform us that an incompetent,
>self-righteous baffoon with a Bible was waiting outside to condemn us to a
>hell we didn't (and don't) believe in? He (actually "she") missed that one,
>too.
>
>>>Stevex: "Are they shown videos like "the silent scream"?"
>
>I would assume there isn't a soundtrack available on CD for this particular
>movie.... To directly answer this question, just what, pray tell, is this
>"silent scream video?" Religious propaganda? A puppet show? A video using a
>camera up a woman's vagina?
>
>More hysterics, most likely.
Indeed.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/abortion/silentscream.HTM
The Facts Speak Louder Than "The Silent Scream"
"In the mid-1980s, leaders of the anti-abortion movement produced a
video called The Silent Scream.
"The video, epitomizing the anti-abortion agenda and strategy, tried
to shift the focus of the abortion debate away from compassion for the
health and needs of the woman to an exaggerated concern for the fetus.
"Although riddled with scientific, medical, and legal inaccuracies as
well as misleading statements and exaggerations, The Silent Scream is
still wildly popular with anti-abortion zealots. And it continues to
be a key tool in their propaganda efforts."
The page I've linked lists some of the video's "scientific, medical,
and legal inaccuracies" and "misleading statements and exaggerations".
Think globally, act locally.
Susan
=============== Remove SPAMWALL from my address to reply ===============
"Gadfly is what they call you when you are no longer | Seditious libel
dangerous. I much prefer troublemaker, malcontent, | for fun and
desperado." -- Harlan Ellison | profit
stevex (return email belongs to a spammer)
> But that is opinion. We certainly have no proof of a soul. For
> example, I don't believ we ever have a "soul." You can't use that to
> claim a human exists as we can't establish it. By that, I mean,
> perhaps a goat has a sould - is it human?
>
said, then don't bother. My statements were logical AND (inclusive) not
logical OR. To rebuttal this, I could just repost what you hacked apart.
BTW a soul is what we use to describe the sentience in a living life form.
(http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=soul for more detail) Maybe you don't
have one but I do, and so does the unborn child.
-Steve
David Barnes
> >>Stevex: "Are they given all the information?
>
> Define *all*. Did a doctor come out and talk to us about the Laws of
> Thermodynamics and how they apply to not only to the structural integrity of
> the building but the tools used in the procedure? No, he didn't. They didn't
> offer any Cajun recipes nor information on housetraining a puppy, either.
>
> Or are you implying that the doctor did not inform us that an incompetent,
> self-righteous baffoon with a Bible was waiting outside to condemn us to a
> hell we didn't (and don't) believe in? He (actually "she") missed that one,
> too.
A doctor who did not provide all of the relevant information would be
liable in a lawsuit. Believe me, doctors tell them everything that is
relevant.
>
> >>Stevex: "Are they shown videos like "the silent scream"?"
>
> I would assume there isn't a soundtrack available on CD for this particular
> movie.... To directly answer this question, just what, pray tell, is this
> "silent scream video?" Religious propaganda? A puppet show? A video using a
> camera up a woman's vagina?
>
> More hysterics, most likely.
Check this out if you want to see the truth about this piece of
propaganda called the "Silent Scream."
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/abortion/silentscream.HTM
It is surprising that anyone brings it up as it has been discredited to
the point where the smarter prolifers don't talk about it.
>
> >>Stevex: "I have heard of and met many couples who chose an underprivileged
> child."
>
> And I would commend them. If there were more people like these, a huge
> problem would resolve itself. Unfortunately, they are but a tiny fraction.
Right on. It is a HUGH distortion to say that people want to adopt.
They want to adopt healthy white infants. Minorities, the unhealthy,
and children over about two years old need not apply...
>
> >>Stevex: "Not that being Mexican makes a child underprivileged. It's
> notable that you identified these examples by race."
>
> You are the person that indicated other races were underpriveleged. Perhaps
> it is you that is the closeted bigot? Try reading my words in context, this
> time without your head up your ass.
They are underprivilaged. Not because of anything having to do with
biology, however. They are underprivilaged because of racism.
>
> -Donald in Austin
stevex (return email belongs to a spammer)
> In article <4o%w9.14982$qD2.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>, return
> email belongs to a spammer\ <poscomm...@libero.it> wrote:
>
> > > No - you are mistaken. If the child is white, young, and healthy,
> > > there is not a problem. Otherwise - no chance.
> > >
> > > How many little black, or asian, or Native American, or Hispanic
> > > children who are unhealthy have you adopted?
> > >
> > How many white children have you adopted?
>
> First of all, you ducked the question. This probably means you haven't
> ever adopted, which means you are a hypocrite.
>
> As for me, there is a problem with the question. I never advocated
> adoption, you did. That means it is none of you business if I have
> adopted.
>
I fail to see your point. Why would I have to adopt a child before I could
understand why it is an option? Why is it any different than you saying
adoption is bad?
David Barnes
email belongs to a spammer\ <poscomm...@libero.it> wrote:
> BTW: The Silent Scream is viewable, albeit in crappy quality, here..
> http://www.silentscreem.org/
There is a better version at
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/abortion/silentscream.HTM
David Barnes
email belongs to a spammer\ <poscomm...@libero.it> wrote:
> "David Barnes" <da...@barnesco.com> wrote in message
> news:021120021902391006%da...@barnesco.com...
> > In article <r2Vw9.14171$qD2.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>, return
> > email belongs to a spammer\ <poscomm...@libero.it> wrote:
> >
> > > Are they shown videos
> > > like "the silent scream"?
> >
> > It is a lie. Is that what you call "education?" Lies? Made up
> > prolife propaganda?
>
> Have you seen the video? What part of it is a lie? Is it the part where
> the baby cries out? Or perhaps it is the part where he/she tries to escape
> the wrath of the surgeon? Oh wait, these clips were made BY the surgeon...
> oh silly me.
I'll leave that answer to the experts:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/abortion/silentscream.HTM
Tell me what you think. You are big on "education."
Patrick L. Humphrey
>BTW: The Silent Scream is viewable, albeit in crappy quality, here..
>http://www.silentscream.org/
So? It was debunked long ago, and it's still patent bullshit...continuing to
claim it's factual doesn't change the reality that it's still patent
bullshit.
No wonder I've been pro-choice for a third of a century -- I was raised not to
lie...
--PL"guess I was lucky enough to have parents who raised me right, eh"H