Well, Now You REALLY got me going.....
Kim
So, remember I told you all that Preemie Baby's mom is pregnant again (third
time in less than 3 years?)
Yeah, well, yesterday she went to Planned Parenthood and got an abortion.
Now, I don't want to start on the merits of abortion and whether or not it
should be legal or even acceptable, my rant and intent is for another avenue
of the debate.
You see, when Paul came home and told me she had gone and gotten an
abortion, the very first question I asked him was "Where the fuck did she
get the money for that?" Paul said "HA! I asked that, too!"
The answer? Why, MEDICAID paid for her abortion.
Oh my fucking God.
WHY?? HOW??? Is Medicaid REALLY paying for abortions?? So, all these
thoughts are swirling through my mind and the ONE thing I come up with is
"OK - so maybe the State thinks it's cheaper to pay for abortions than pay
for the kid for 18 years...." But then why isn't the state in the Adoption
frame of mind - make these girls give their babies to loving families that
can support them? But then again, that's a slippery slope, why not just take
already born babies away from poor people willy-nilly and foster them ALL
out to more financially capable families - I get it.....
But, back to my original shock - So deos Medicaid REALLY pay for abortions?
So I google the issue and seems that New York has decided that for women
under the Federal Poverty Level *AND*(big AND there) *AND* when the
procedure would be MEDICALLY NECESSARY or in cases of RAPE or INCEST -
Medicaid will pay for an abortion.
So I yell to Paul: "Paul - so why did Medicaid pay for her abortion? Was it
medically necessary?"
Paul: "Well, if you count that she's a fucking moron - yeah....but no other
reason - she can still smoke and do drugs with the best of them."
So count out "Medically Necessary" - there's nothing wrong with her.
So I yell to Paul again: "Was she raped - or did she fuck her brother?"
Paul: "Yeah - raped - hahahahahahhaha...and I don't think she has a
brother."
So, count out rape and incest.
So, now I'm really curious. How did she get Medicaid to pay for her
abortion? And I'm STILL pissed off that Medicaid pays for abortions at all -
but I can see it if it's medically necessary or a case of rape or incest -
so I won't make too much of a stink over that. I mean, I won't call the
governor or anything - yet.
The only thing I can do is call over there to her boyfriend's parents
house - where she WAS living until her boyfriend started banging the married
Guatemalan chick on a regular basis - and since her boyfriend's mom went
with her to have the abortion - I know she'll know what's up.
So I call: "Yeah, I just wanted to see if Preemie Baby's mom is OK - I mean
Paul said that she had an abortion today and since I know Medicaid will only
pay for it if it's medically necessary, I wanted to make sure there was
nothing wrong with her...." (God I love that I'm so fucking cagey.)
And Preemie Baby Grandma says "Oh, yeah, no, she's OK - we just told them
that she was raped - Medicaid will pay for it if you say you were raped."
Ummmm.....HUH?? "What? Don't you have to give them proof you were raped -
like a police report or something?"
"No - they don't ask for any proof - you just tell them you were raped and
they'll get Medicaid to pay for it. That's how anybody around here who wants
an abortion does it. My niece has gotten like 4 abortions in the past 4
years. She just told them she was raped every time - and they bill Medicaid.
And it's good because you don't have to go through all their alternatives
counseling because they don't want you to be walking around with a rape baby
inside you - so it's a quicker process."
Oh my fucking God. So where do I begin, people? Where the fuck do I begin? I
want to go to Planned Parenthood and start my own picket line. I wonder if
those protesters out there already even have a fucking CLUE Planned
Parenthood does this?? Planned Parenthood has GOT to know that we don't have
a rape epidemic in Malone. Right? Is this a loophole? Is this true at ANY
Planned Parenthood? Can I just walk into Planned Parenthood anywhere in
America and claim I was raped and get a free abortion? WHAT THE HELL???
I am so angry on so many levels, I don't even know where to start bitching.
So where do I start bitching? Who do I call up and scream at? At whose feet
does THIS belong at? Whos is accountable? Or is it all OK - because the
state can either "pay for it now or pay for it later?"
OK - rant over, I'm just pissed. This has REALLY got me going.
--
Kim
www.thedarwinexception.wordpress.com
* I wish I were a spy and evil people had come to my house and torn it apart
looking for secrets. Then at least I'd have an excuse for it looking that
way.*
Kajikit
<darwinexcepti...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>So, remember I told you all that Preemie Baby's mom is pregnant again (third
>time in less than 3 years?)
>
>Yeah, well, yesterday she went to Planned Parenthood and got an abortion.
>Now, I don't want to start on the merits of abortion and whether or not it
>should be legal or even acceptable, my rant and intent is for another avenue
>of the debate.
>
>You see, when Paul came home and told me she had gone and gotten an
>abortion, the very first question I asked him was "Where the fuck did she
>get the money for that?" Paul said "HA! I asked that, too!"
>
>The answer? Why, MEDICAID paid for her abortion.
>
>Oh my fucking God.
Better that she get an abortion now than that the state ends up
supporting another unwanted kid for the next eighteen years...
--
My website - http://www.kajikitscorner.com
My cooking blog - http://kajikit.wordpress.com
My crafty blog - http://kajikit.blogspot.com
Mr C
wrote:
> And Preemie Baby Grandma says "Oh, yeah, no, she's OK - we just told them
> that she was raped - Medicaid will pay for it if you say you were raped."
>
> Ummmm.....HUH?? "What? Don't you have to give them proof you were raped -
> like a police report or something?"
>
> "No - they don't ask for any proof - you just tell them you were raped and
> they'll get Medicaid to pay for it. That's how anybody around here who wants
> an abortion does it. My niece has gotten like 4 abortions in the past 4
> years. She just told them she was raped every time - and they bill Medicaid.
> And it's good because you don't have to go through all their alternatives
> counseling because they don't want you to be walking around with a rape baby
> inside you - so it's a quicker process."
>
Hmmm. There ought to be a term we could use to describe people like
this.
> Oh my fucking God. So where do I begin, people? Where the fuck do I begin? I
> want to go to Planned Parenthood and start my own picket line. I wonder if
> those protesters out there already even have a fucking CLUE Planned
> Parenthood does this?? Planned Parenthood has GOT to know that we don't have
> a rape epidemic in Malone. Right? Is this a loophole? Is this true at ANY
> Planned Parenthood? Can I just walk into Planned Parenthood anywhere in
> America and claim I was raped and get a free abortion? WHAT THE HELL???
>
How many make it a "rape epidemic"? I'm guessing that for someone who
was actually raped, one is epidemic enough.
I would suggest that requiring a police report for this situation
would tend to scare away some women already tramatized by rape, and
afraid to face their tormentor, thus leave them with raising a child
of rape--probably alone. I don't know about you, but I find that
outcome far worse than the one you describe.
Further, your reaction here is based on *at best* one fact--the woman
got an abortion through Medicaid via PP. I do not count as fact
grandmommy's assertion that that's how "anybody around here" does it.
Why do you?
> I am so angry on so many levels, I don't even know where to start bitching.
>
> So where do I start bitching? Who do I call up and scream at? At whose feet
> does THIS belong at? Whos is accountable? Or is it all OK - because the
> state can either "pay for it now or pay for it later?"
>
In the short term, you could scream at the Planned Parenthood folks--
after all, they support the idea that people with serious issues like
rape should have someplace to go for confidential, nonjudgmental
assistance. I'm sure they have nothing better to do than listen to
your outrage about it.
Mr C
Kim
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 09:17:43 -0400, "Kim"
> <darwinexcepti...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> So, remember I told you all that Preemie Baby's mom is pregnant
>> again (third time in less than 3 years?)
>>
>> Yeah, well, yesterday she went to Planned Parenthood and got an
>> abortion. Now, I don't want to start on the merits of abortion and
>> whether or not it should be legal or even acceptable, my rant and
>> intent is for another avenue of the debate.
>>
>> You see, when Paul came home and told me she had gone and gotten an
>> abortion, the very first question I asked him was "Where the fuck
>> did she get the money for that?" Paul said "HA! I asked that, too!"
>>
>> The answer? Why, MEDICAID paid for her abortion.
>>
>> Oh my fucking God.
>
> Better that she get an abortion now than that the state ends up
> supporting another unwanted kid for the next eighteen years...
I know. And, as I said, that was my very first thought, as well. And I
understand the sentiment and the logic behind it. I really do. And it makes
sound logical financial sense. In fact, if it was up for a vote, I'd
probably vote to allow state funding for abortions. Saves money. And saves a
kid from growing up in the pit of despair that comes with being "unwanted."
But the thing that bothers me is if the state wants to be in the business of
providing abortions for free as a contraceptive tool under the theory that
they are looking out for their financial interests, then why don't they just
have a PSA saying "We Provide Abortions - Call Planned Parenthood today for
yours!" Why hide that fact inside a loophole that apparently is being
exploited? Why lie to the residents of the state with the whole "Only when
medically necessary" bullshit? And does providing abortions really teach
these young girls a sense of personal responsibility? Why use contraception
at all if you can just get the state to pay to get rid of your unplanned
pregnancy? If the niece of Paul's friend had had to PAY for the first two
abortions, would there have been a third and a fourth?
And if the state is going to be in the business of funding abortions for low
income persons so that the state can cut their future costs, then maybe they
should take it a step further and when a child is born, if the mother is
already on welfare, they should take the child into state's custody and
foster it out to a family more capable of providing for it without the
state's help. Wouldn't that be in the states best financial interests, as
well?
Kim
> On Sep 11, 10:17 pm, "Kim" <darwinexceptiontakethis...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> So I call: "Yeah, I just wanted to see if Preemie Baby's mom is OK -
>> I mean Paul said that she had an abortion today and since I know
>> Medicaid will only pay for it if it's medically necessary, I wanted
>> to make sure there was nothing wrong with her...." (God I love that
>> I'm so fucking cagey.)
>>
> Does that mean the same as nosey?
Of course! What in the world made you think I wasn't nosey? I post 10 nosey
questions here every Sunday.
>> Oh my fucking God. So where do I begin, people? Where the fuck do I
>> begin? I want to go to Planned Parenthood and start my own picket
>> line. I wonder if those protesters out there already even have a
>> fucking CLUE Planned Parenthood does this?? Planned Parenthood has
>> GOT to know that we don't have a rape epidemic in Malone. Right? Is
>> this a loophole? Is this true at ANY Planned Parenthood? Can I just
>> walk into Planned Parenthood anywhere in America and claim I was
>> raped and get a free abortion? WHAT THE HELL???
>>
> How many make it a "rape epidemic"? I'm guessing that for someone who
> was actually raped, one is epidemic enough.
>
> I would suggest that requiring a police report for this situation
> would tend to scare away some women already tramatized by rape, and
> afraid to face their tormentor, thus leave them with raising a child
> of rape--probably alone. I don't know about you, but I find that
> outcome far worse than the one you describe.
Yeah, you're probably right about that. I wouldn't want someone who was
ACTUALLY raped to have to be at Planned Parenthood PROVING they were raped
in order to get services or counseling or whatever else they provide. Good
point.
>
> Further, your reaction here is based on *at best* one fact--the woman
> got an abortion through Medicaid via PP. I do not count as fact
> grandmommy's assertion that that's how "anybody around here" does it.
> Why do you?
Because this woman is Malone Central. She knows just about everything about
everybody. With good reason, but we won't go into that. Let's just say she
has no qualms about violating the confidentiality her job requires her to
have.
>
>> I am so angry on so many levels, I don't even know where to start
>> bitching.
>>
>> So where do I start bitching? Who do I call up and scream at? At
>> whose feet does THIS belong at? Whos is accountable? Or is it all OK
>> - because the state can either "pay for it now or pay for it later?"
>>
> In the short term, you could scream at the Planned Parenthood folks--
> after all, they support the idea that people with serious issues like
> rape should have someplace to go for confidential, nonjudgmental
> assistance. I'm sure they have nothing better to do than listen to
> your outrage about it.
What about the long term?
Heather
<darwinexcepti...@verizon.net> wrote:
(snip)
>
>Because this woman is Malone Central. She knows just about everything about
>everybody. With good reason, but we won't go into that. Let's just say she
>has no qualms about violating the confidentiality her job requires her to
>have.
>
Now that is what I would be really angry about. What does she do that
she has all this confidential information that she is treating as
gossip fodder? How do you know that she, unethical as she is, is
telling the truth? If you want to do something useful, report her to
her employer.
--
Heather
Boron Elgar
<darwinexcepti...@verizon.net> wrote:
>So where do I start bitching? Who do I call up and scream at? At whose feet
>does THIS belong at? Whos is accountable? Or is it all OK - because the
>state can either "pay for it now or pay for it later?"
>
>OK - rant over, I'm just pissed. This has REALLY got me going.
Let's see....$300-500 for an abortion or some huge magnitude greater
to get her through pre-natal, birth and ADC.
Sounds like easy math to me.
Think about it this way...we have a system set up so that a poor woman
HAS to lie about being raped in order to have access to abortion
services. That is worth bitching about.
Boron
Mr C
wrote:
> Mr C wrote:
> > On Sep 11, 10:17 pm, "Kim" <darwinexceptiontakethis...@verizon.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > I would suggest that requiring a police report for this situation
> > would tend to scare away some women already tramatized by rape, and
> > afraid to face their tormentor, thus leave them with raising a child
> > of rape--probably alone. I don't know about you, but I find that
> > outcome far worse than the one you describe.
>
> Yeah, you're probably right about that. I wouldn't want someone who was
> ACTUALLY raped to have to be at Planned Parenthood PROVING they were raped
> in order to get services or counseling or whatever else they provide. Good
> point.
>
>
>
> > Further, your reaction here is based on *at best* one fact--the woman
> > got an abortion through Medicaid via PP. I do not count as fact
> > grandmommy's assertion that that's how "anybody around here" does it.
> > Why do you?
>
> Because this woman is Malone Central. She knows just about everything about
> everybody. With good reason, but we won't go into that. Let's just say she
> has no qualms about violating the confidentiality her job requires her to
> have.
>
lying whore is okay, since there's so many lying whores in town.
2) If her job gives her access to confidential info and she goes
spreading it around, why aren't you calling her boss with this news?
Seems the more serious of all the problems in this situation.
>
>
> >> I am so angry on so many levels, I don't even know where to start
> >> bitching.
>
> >> So where do I start bitching? Who do I call up and scream at? At
> >> whose feet does THIS belong at? Whos is accountable? Or is it all OK
> >> - because the state can either "pay for it now or pay for it later?"
>
> > In the short term, you could scream at the Planned Parenthood folks--
> > after all, they support the idea that people with serious issues like
> > rape should have someplace to go for confidential, nonjudgmental
> > assistance. I'm sure they have nothing better to do than listen to
> > your outrage about it.
>
> What about the long term?
>
Medicaid for paying for it? If the latter, petition your
representatives to change the law. If the former, maybe you could
volunteer at Planned Parenthood, where they try to improve education
about reproduction and contraception: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/
Mr C
Lisa Ann
This is closer to my position.
Before Roe vs Wade, someone with money and a sympathetic doctor could
get an abortion locally by claiming the same thing - medically
necessary, rape, incest, etc. Someone without the money was out of
luck.
My very, very Catholic ex-father-in-law, who was chief of staff at a
hospital in Akron and an OB/GYN, was known to perform D&Cs on women
who had a "congested uterus". It wasn't an abortion, it was just that
their uterus was congested and *that's* why they hadn't had their
period. Considering Dad never had the heart to dun his patients for
delivering their babies (and actually fired his office manager for
attempting to collect on past due bills), I suspect he was helping out
women who didn't have a lot of money and couldn't afford the
sympathetic "medically necessary" abortion. Apparently, though, there
were a quite a few women over the years who had congested uteruses.
(uterii?)
--
Lisa Ann
David Friedman
Lisa Ann <lisa...@stalnakershampine.com> wrote:
> My very, very Catholic ex-father-in-law, who was chief of staff at a
> hospital in Akron and an OB/GYN, was known to perform D&Cs on women
> who had a "congested uterus". It wasn't an abortion, it was just that
> their uterus was congested and *that's* why they hadn't had their
> period.
That's actually a version of a much older medical doctrine. I gather
that through most of the 19th century, early term abortions were labeled
as procedures to restore menstrual flow. As I remember the history, bans
on abortions become a serious issue in the late 19th century, associated
with the professionalization of the medical profession, introduction of
medical licensing, and related changes.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of
_Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
Cambridge University Press.
Veronique
wrote:
> So, remember I told you all that Preemie Baby's mom is pregnant again (third
> time in less than 3 years?)
>
> Yeah, well, yesterday she went to Planned Parenthood and got an abortion.
> Now, I don't want to start on the merits of abortion and whether or not it
> should be legal or even acceptable, my rant and intent is for another avenue
> of the debate.
>
> You see, when Paul came home and told me she had gone and gotten an
> abortion, the very first question I asked him was "Where the fuck did she
> get the money for that?" Paul said "HA! I asked that, too!"
>
> The answer? Why, MEDICAID paid for her abortion.
The system works.
I know you're angry about this, but it really cheered me up.
V.
--
Veronique Chez Sheep
Greg Goss
>My very, very Catholic ex-father-in-law, who was chief of staff at a
>hospital in Akron and an OB/GYN, was known to perform D&Cs on women
>who had a "congested uterus". It wasn't an abortion, it was just that
>their uterus was congested and *that's* why they hadn't had their
>period.
RU486 isn't really an abortion drug. It's a period inducer. If
there's an embryo in there, it's a victim along the way.
A lot of people use RU486 in the way you describe.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Kajikit
There isn't technically an 'embryo' anywhere until it's implanted...
All RU486 does is make sure that should there be a fertilised egg it
can't implant, so it won't grow. If it's already managed to implant
itself, you're too late and it won't help you, which is why it's
crucial to get it ASAP without any beaurocratic delays. (btw, plenty
of eggs fail to implant all by themselves, fertilised or not, which is
why women don't get pregnant every month even if they're going at it
like bunnies!)
Dover Beach
news:h8dipf$t6h$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> I am so angry on so many levels, I don't even know where to start
> bitching.
>
> So where do I start bitching? Who do I call up and scream at? At whose
> feet does THIS belong at? Whos is accountable? Or is it all OK -
> because the state can either "pay for it now or pay for it later?"
>
> OK - rant over, I'm just pissed. This has REALLY got me going.
>
I'm not really clear on what you're so mad about.
Are you opposed to abortion? I know you were raised and educated Roman
Catholic. But it seems like it's the Medicaid funding that's eating
you.
I mean, my tax dollars go to the war in Iraq, and it's waaaaay more
dollars. And I could get worked up about it right now if I weren't so
sleepy.
And Mr. C (I think) who pointed out that you really don't want to have
to make women prove they were raped -- that's difficult, and
humiliating, and anyway, you can't *prove* it til the rapist has been
legally convicted, which might happen when the kid is about 2 years old.
You know this woman to be a truly terrible mother. Shouldn't you be
relieved that she's not going to raise another child?
If you're opposed to abortion generally -- and I'm not interested in
getting into that argument right now either, but let's stipulate that
you are opposed to abortion -- then shouldn't you be just as damn mad if
I get an abortion after paying my own $300 at the clinic? What if I get
my employer-sponsored insurance to pay for it, and you have the same
employer, and you paid premiums into the same system? It's still your
money being spent on abortion.
What if she'd driven up to Canada to get a lower-priced abortion?
Aren't you being kind of like Dana here, arguing that people who get
food stamps shouldn't be allowed to buy chips and soda, but everyone
else can, if they're spending "their own" money?
I think -- and you can correct me if I'm wrong -- that your anger is
really at the abortion, not the funding.
--
Dover
D.F. Manno
"Kim" <darwinexcepti...@verizon.net> wrote:
> But the thing that bothers me is if the state wants to be in the business of
> providing abortions for free as a contraceptive tool under the theory that
> they are looking out for their financial interests, then why don't they just
> have a PSA saying "We Provide Abortions - Call Planned Parenthood today for
> yours!" Why hide that fact inside a loophole that apparently is being
> exploited? Why lie to the residents of the state with the whole "Only when
> medically necessary" bullshit?
Because the RCC and the other anti-choice rackets would never allow it.
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
"...the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the
dream shall never die."
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Kajikit wrote:
>
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:37:02 -0700, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>
> >Lisa Ann <lisa...@stalnakershampine.com> wrote:
> >
> >>My very, very Catholic ex-father-in-law, who was chief of staff at a
> >>hospital in Akron and an OB/GYN, was known to perform D&Cs on women
> >>who had a "congested uterus". It wasn't an abortion, it was just that
> >>their uterus was congested and *that's* why they hadn't had their
> >>period.
> >
> >RU486 isn't really an abortion drug. It's a period inducer. If
> >there's an embryo in there, it's a victim along the way.
> >
> >A lot of people use RU486 in the way you describe.
>
> There isn't technically an 'embryo' anywhere until it's implanted...
> All RU486 does is make sure that should there be a fertilised egg it
> can't implant, so it won't grow. If it's already managed to implant
> itself, you're too late and it won't help you, which is why it's
> crucial to get it ASAP without any beaurocratic delays.
>
RU486 {mifepristone} is capable of destroying an embyo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RU486
#begin quote
Mifepristone is a synthetic steroid compound used as a
pharmaceutical. It is used as an abortifacient in the first two
months of pregnancy,
#end quote
Opus the Penguin
> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>>Lisa Ann <lisa...@stalnakershampine.com> wrote:
>>
>>>My very, very Catholic ex-father-in-law, who was chief of staff
>>>at a hospital in Akron and an OB/GYN, was known to perform D&Cs
>>>on women who had a "congested uterus". It wasn't an abortion, it
>>>was just that their uterus was congested and *that's* why they
>>>hadn't had their period.
>>
>>RU486 isn't really an abortion drug. It's a period inducer. If
>>there's an embryo in there, it's a victim along the way.
>>
>>A lot of people use RU486 in the way you describe.
>
> There isn't technically an 'embryo' anywhere until it's
> implanted... All RU486 does is make sure that should there be a
> fertilised egg it can't implant, so it won't grow. If it's already
> managed to implant itself, you're too late and it won't help you,
> which is why it's crucial to get it ASAP without any beaurocratic
> delays. (btw, plenty of eggs fail to implant all by themselves,
> fertilised or not, which is why women don't get pregnant every
> month even if they're going at it like bunnies!)
Is that the main reason? I'd guess the main reason is that no eggs
got fertilized that month, but maybe I'm mistaken. You're right, of
course, that even eggs that do get fertilized will often not implant.
I'm not sure what the odds are. I'd be curious to find out.
--
Opus the Penguin
And don't get me started on my inexperience with pork products. -
Boron Elgar
Boron Elgar
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/08/2/gr080207.html
When Is a Woman Pregnant?
To be sure, not every act of intercourse results in a pregnancy.
First, ovulation (i.e., the monthly release of a woman's egg) must
occur. Then, the egg must be fertilized. Fertilization describes the
process by which a single sperm gradually penetrates the layers of an
egg to form a new cell ("zygote"). This usually occurs in the
fallopian tubes and can take up to 24 hours. There is only a short
window during which an egg can be fertilized. If fertilization does
not occur during that time, the egg dissolves and then hormonal
changes trigger menstruation; however, if fertilization does occur,
the zygote divides and differentiates into a "preembryo" while being
carried down the fallopian tube toward the uterus. Implantation of the
preembryo in the uterine lining begins about five days after
fertilization. Implantation can be completed as early as eight days or
as late as 18 days after fertilization, but usually takes about 14
days. Between one-third and one-half of all fertilized eggs never
fully implant. A pregnancy is considered to be established only after
implantation is complete.
Source: American College of Obstetricans and Gynecologists.
Kim
> "Kim" <darwinexcepti...@verizon.net> wrote in
> news:h8dipf$t6h$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>
>> I am so angry on so many levels, I don't even know where to start
>> bitching.
>>
>> So where do I start bitching? Who do I call up and scream at? At
>> whose feet does THIS belong at? Whos is accountable? Or is it all OK
>> - because the state can either "pay for it now or pay for it later?"
>>
>> OK - rant over, I'm just pissed. This has REALLY got me going.
>>
>
> I'm not really clear on what you're so mad about.
You know, Dover, neither am I. No, really, I'm not sure WHAT I'm mad about -
because you are right. I am not against abortion - although I do wince at
people who use abortion as a form of birth control.
>
> Are you opposed to abortion? I know you were raised and educated
> Roman Catholic. But it seems like it's the Medicaid funding that's
> eating you.
Well, and it's not really this, either. Because as someone else pointed out.
If I'm mad at Medicaid funding it - isn't that better than funding the kid
for the next 18 years? Which is a true thing, that.
>
> I mean, my tax dollars go to the war in Iraq, and it's waaaaay more
> dollars. And I could get worked up about it right now if I weren't so
> sleepy.
And yup - another good point. The government funds all kinds of things that
I'm way more against than abortions.
>
> And Mr. C (I think) who pointed out that you really don't want to have
> to make women prove they were raped -- that's difficult, and
> humiliating, and anyway, you can't *prove* it til the rapist has been
> legally convicted, which might happen when the kid is about 2 years
> old.
No, I don't want women to prove they were raped. They got enough problems,
and besides, rapes are underreported, anyway. Especially date rapes.
>
> You know this woman to be a truly terrible mother. Shouldn't you be
> relieved that she's not going to raise another child?
Yes, there's always that. I *don't* want her having another kid she is going
to ignore and not take care of.
>
> If you're opposed to abortion generally -- and I'm not interested in
> getting into that argument right now either, but let's stipulate that
> you are opposed to abortion -- then shouldn't you be just as damn mad
> if I get an abortion after paying my own $300 at the clinic? What if
> I get my employer-sponsored insurance to pay for it, and you have the
> same employer, and you paid premiums into the same system? It's
> still your money being spent on abortion.
>
> What if she'd driven up to Canada to get a lower-priced abortion?
>
> Aren't you being kind of like Dana here, arguing that people who get
> food stamps shouldn't be allowed to buy chips and soda, but everyone
> else can, if they're spending "their own" money?
>
> I think -- and you can correct me if I'm wrong -- that your anger is
> really at the abortion, not the funding.
You know, weighing everything, I don't think it's the abortion, I don't
think it's the funding, I think, ultimately, that I'm mad at the GIRL. I'm
mad that she never has to take responsibility. I'm mad that now that she
knows someone else will clean up her mess when she gets pregnant, that birth
control, for her, is straight out the window. I'm mad that the state has
decided that instead of making her carry this kid and then give it up for
adoption to a family that can't HAVE kids, that they'll just run after her
and "make it all better".
This chick just gets everyone else to fix the things she fucks up and never,
ever, ever takes responsibility for anything. And all these agencies run by
the government enable her. And I'm just sick of that entitlement attitude
she carries around. You know "I deserve it because I'm me and SOMEONE has to
take care of me."
Her kid is having trouble talking - because no one has bothered to teach him
to talk - they just yell at him - so her first response is to go and get him
a disability check. Not "gee, let's teach him to talk!" Paul and I had the
kid for the weekend a month or so ago - by the time he left here he was
saying "Paul", "Milo", "motorcycle", "kitty"......they were SHOCKED! SHOCKED
and AWED! "Oh my God - he doesn't talk AT ALL!! How did you get him to say,
like, WORDS?" Stupid fucks. And then - THEN what does she say?? "I guess I
have to be careful at his doctor's - if he reports that he is progressing I
could lose his check!"
And the reason we had the kid in the first place was because she took her
welfare check on the first of the month and went to the casino with it and
lost all her money - because, in her words, "I just needed to have some fun
for once." So, she got a 3 day "Pay or Quit" notice on her apartment, and
she left the apartment. She went and stayed at a friend's until she got a
welfare appointment and farmed her kids out to friends - and welfare
proceeded to pay for her to get another apartment. Paid her deposit, paid
her utility deposits and paid her first months rent. Not "Oh well, we done
already gave you money - if you blew it, well, too bad, so sad." No, they
moved her ass into another place.
And then, on top of that, to learn that someone else took responsibility for
this pregnancy - a pregnancy that could have been avoided with, you know,
birth control? Well, I guess that just was the straw that broke the camel's
back for me. I'm just pissed that no one seems to make her suck it up and
take a little fucking responsibility for her decisions.
I think that's it. I don't know, I could be wrong, I guess. Maybe it is the
abortion - but I don't think so. Maybe it IS the source of the funding - but
I don't think it's that, either. Because logically, I think Medicaid should
pay for it rather than let her have another kid.
But I do know I'm still pissed about it - I just can't put my finger on WHY.
I'm betting it's just that it's HER.
Opus the Penguin
Fascinating, thanks. I don't know why, but I didn't expect the
fraction of successful implantations to be that high.
--
Opus the Penguin
I have never attempted to use a USB stick that way. - Boron Elgar
Lee Ayrton
Not a primary source, but this article:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/34948.html
Reports that professor of pediatrics, human genetics and OB/GYN John Opitz
testified that between 60 and 80% of fertilized eggs never implant. About
half of these are abnormal, the other half are normal and would result in
healthy humans.
Sorry, I couldn't easily find another source that didn't have an agenda.
Opus the Penguin
> Not a primary source, but this article:
>
> http://www.reason.com/news/show/34948.html
>
> Reports that professor of pediatrics, human genetics and OB/GYN
> John Opitz testified that between 60 and 80% of fertilized eggs
> never implant. About half of these are abnormal, the other half
> are normal and would result in healthy humans.
>
> Sorry, I couldn't easily find another source that didn't have an
> agenda.
That's always the problem with this issue. I just wanna know. I don't
even see how it would change anyone's legitimate points on any side
of the discussion. I guess I can see how the facts could be
politicized.
So ... lessee. 60 to 80% of fertilized eggs don't implant. But half
of them are duds anyway, depending on what "abnormal" means. That
could be anything from "could not develop into a live 9-month fetus
even with outside help" to "could develop with outside help but
wouldn't survive past the first birthday" to "missing an arm" to
"kinda funny looking, like that guy in Fargo."
Let's say they basically have no chance, even artificially. So ...
huh. I can't just halve the percentage and say 30 to 40% of viable
preembryos don't implant, can I? Um ... ok, 100 eggs. 60 to 80--so
let's say 70--don't implant. That means 30 do. Of the 70, 35 could
have grown up to be normal if circumstances had been different. (I'm
assuming it's more or less chance and not something about the egg
itself that keeps it from implanting if it's normal.) So that's
roughly half--maybe a little more or less--of viable preembryos that
don't implant.
I don't have anything to make out of that. I was just curious.
The article itself makes an interesting point. It says, "Consider the
claim made by right-to-life apologists like Robert George... that
every embryo is 'already a human being.' Does that mean that if we
could detect such unimplanted embryos as they leave the womb, we
would have a duty to rescue them and try to implant them anyway?"
That's an interesting point IF Robert George is using "embryo" to
refer to what we've been calling "preembryos" in this conversation.
If he's using it to mean "implanted, fertilized egg," then the
question disappears, or at least doesn't apply to his view.
I'm more comfortable saying that the bright line is at implantation
than saying it's at fertilization or birth (or that there isn't a
bright line but a sliding scale). If I thought the line was at
fertilization, I could see how these statistics might become
significant.
What's the Catholic view, anyway? That's one of the many things we
never studied in any detailed at seminary.
--
Opus the Penguin
You are me, and you have my utmost sympathy. - Bill Turlock
Kajikit
I don't even know her and I'm mad at her too... sometimes compulsory
sterilization sounds like a very good idea!
Greg Goss
>And the reason we had the kid in the first place was because she took her
>welfare check on the first of the month and went to the casino with it and
>lost all her money - because, in her words, "I just needed to have some fun
>for once." So, she got a 3 day "Pay or Quit" notice on her apartment, and
>she left the apartment. She went and stayed at a friend's until she got a
>welfare appointment and farmed her kids out to friends - and welfare
>proceeded to pay for her to get another apartment.
Did you look at whether welfare would pay for three days of emergency
child care? You probably have three or four hundred bucks coming to
you.
Kim
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:27:59 -0400, "Kim"
>>
>> But I do know I'm still pissed about it - I just can't put my finger
>> on WHY.
>>
>> I'm betting it's just that it's HER.
>
> I don't even know her and I'm mad at her too... sometimes compulsory
> sterilization sounds like a very good idea!
Thanks for that. Knowing that someone else with a brain thinks she's a
fucking moron makes me at least feel justified in my own anger at the twit.
And makes me conclude that maybe my outrage and indignation IS just a result
of the whole thing being about this one girl in particular. Which I really
think it is.
Veronique
wrote:
> But I do know I'm still pissed about it - I just can't put my finger on WHY.
>
> I'm betting it's just that it's HER.
Has she approached Medicaid for funding her sterilization? Because she
can't care for the kids she has, she can't even hardly care for
herself (vis "lost the rent money at a casino because she deserved
FUN!" and is basically everything they warned us about happening with
the Welfare State.
And using birth control is apparently not a viable option.
Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)
Kim, the Federal Government won't pay for abortions except to protect
the health of the mother or in the case of rape or incest. My health
insurance, like all federal health insurance, is that way and I
remember when it was changed. At that time, they even proposed not
paying for contraception but that part of the proposal didn't make it.
Not that the insurance is totally anti-woman, since the government
requires all the plans to offer yearly well-woman exams and Pap smears
and mastectomies, but there's a lot more messing around with women's
reproductive care than there is with men's.
If your insurance is funded by the Feds, the only way you can get an
abortion, if you can't afford it yourself, is to meet those
conditions. If you don't have the misfortune of meeting those
conditions, lying is sometimes the only recourse.
I think that, at this point, you have to weigh the relative wrongness
of telling one lie against that of having a child you don't really
want and, from the way you describe this woman, won't really raise
well. From your description, this is the first time she's ever
actually considered the future more than a couple of days in advance.
Are you sure you're not objecting to her sexual behavior, instead of
the abortion? It sure sounds as if you think she should be punished
by having to have the baby and raise it because she got pregnant
outside of marriage and is supporting herself on the taxpayers'
nickel.
Mary "A lot of people want to punish women for having sex."
--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
We didn't just do weird stuff at Dryden, we wrote reports about it.
reunite....@gmail.com or mil...@qnet.com
Visit my blog at http://thedigitalknitter.blogspot.com/
Les Albert
<darwinexcepti...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Kajikit wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:27:59 -0400, "Kim"
>>> But I do know I'm still pissed about it - I just can't put my finger
>>> on WHY.
>>> I'm betting it's just that it's HER.
>> I don't even know her and I'm mad at her too... sometimes compulsory
>> sterilization sounds like a very good idea!
>Thanks for that. Knowing that someone else with a brain thinks she's a
>fucking moron makes me at least feel justified in my own anger at the twit.
>And makes me conclude that maybe my outrage and indignation IS just a result
>of the whole thing being about this one girl in particular. Which I really
>think it is.
I wonder about your outrage and being pissed off about her doings. She
is probably just a woman who really likes to fuck, and is so
overwhelmed by the moment that she forgets about safe sex.
Les
Kim
> On Sep 11, 12:27 pm, "Kim" <darwinexceptiontakethis...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>> But I do know I'm still pissed about it - I just can't put my finger
>> on WHY.
>>
>> I'm betting it's just that it's HER.
>
>
> Has she approached Medicaid for funding her sterilization? Because she
> can't care for the kids she has, she can't even hardly care for
> herself (vis "lost the rent money at a casino because she deserved
> FUN!" and is basically everything they warned us about happening with
> the Welfare State.
Yeah, well, see that's another thing that pisses me off. She can't get her
tubes tied because apparantly you have to be 21 to do that and she ain't.
Not for another couple years and a half, anyway.
I think if you already have a bunch of kids you can't afford and can't be
responsible enough to use birth control that if you have the sense to ask
for your tubes to be tied - then you should be able to have that done. I
don't care if you are 16 or 36.
Dover Beach
news:h8eq1t$j44$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> Yeah, well, see that's another thing that pisses me off. She can't get
> her tubes tied because apparantly you have to be 21 to do that and she
> ain't. Not for another couple years and a half, anyway.
Okay, I don't agree with that policy at all. 18 and you get to call it.
>
> I think if you already have a bunch of kids you can't afford and can't
> be responsible enough to use birth control that if you have the sense
> to ask for your tubes to be tied - then you should be able to have
> that done. I don't care if you are 16 or 36.
>
>
I get where you're coming from, Kim, and I get why you're so angry at
this girl. The problem is just that there is no way for public policies
to deal with her -- at least, no way that wouldn't harm lots of other
women that you don't want to harm.
But in a perfectly just world, a large foot would come down from the sky
and kick her ass at least once a day.
--
Dover
Kim
No - this isn't her daughter - it's her son's girlfriend - well, ex
girlfriend, to be technical about it - but, it's one of those relationships
where every other week they are "on again" - then on alternating weeks, they
are "off again".
And the mother doesn't even LIKE the girl. She kicked her out of the house
when the girl got caught up at the school grounds fucking the 45 year old
married next door neighbor guy of the mother. I wish Malone Leslie was
around - she would remember more details about that than I do at the moment.
But it was a doozy of a story. The girl actually had the preemie baby and
her other kid WITH her when she was fucking this guy. On the school
playground. Oh - and the guy was taking nekkid pictures of her. For the
internet.
God, I love this place.
> 2) If her job gives her access to confidential info and she goes
> spreading it around, why aren't you calling her boss with this news?
> Seems the more serious of all the problems in this situation.
That's been done. Many times. By many people. Does no good.
Kim
> In article <h8dlja$jsr$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Kim" <darwinexcepti...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> But the thing that bothers me is if the state wants to be in the
>> business of providing abortions for free as a contraceptive tool
>> under the theory that they are looking out for their financial
>> interests, then why don't they just have a PSA saying "We Provide
>> Abortions - Call Planned Parenthood today for yours!" Why hide that
>> fact inside a loophole that apparently is being exploited? Why lie
>> to the residents of the state with the whole "Only when medically
>> necessary" bullshit?
>
> Because the RCC and the other anti-choice rackets would never allow
> it.
See, now that just makes me wonder what the state is hiding under some other
loopholes because *I* wouldn't allow it.
Hidden Draggin
[snip]
> Oh my fucking God. So where do I begin, people? Where the fuck do I
> begin? I want to go to Planned Parenthood and start my own picket
> line. I wonder if those protesters out there already even have a
> fucking CLUE Planned Parenthood does this?? Planned Parenthood has
> GOT to know that we don't have a rape epidemic in Malone. Right? Is
> this a loophole? Is this true at ANY Planned Parenthood? Can I just
> walk into Planned Parenthood anywhere in America and claim I was
> raped and get a free abortion? WHAT THE HELL???
> I am so angry on so many levels, I don't even know where to start
> bitching.
> So where do I start bitching? Who do I call up and scream at? At
> whose feet does THIS belong at? Whos is accountable? Or is it all OK
> - because the state can either "pay for it now or pay for it later?"
>
> OK - rant over, I'm just pissed. This has REALLY got me going.
What is the problem? I have been told repeatedly for years in
the media that abortion must be available as an option and as a RIGHT
in order for woman to be free and equal. All of this stuff about unborn
babies is right-wing crap, right? Those folks protesting outside
Planned Parenthood are ALL NUTCASES. This is what I have been
told repeatedly for many years. Did you not listen Kim?
--
Hidden Draggin - Gilbert Hansford
Don't join dangerous cults, practice safe sects!
http://twitter.com/hiddendraggin
http://hiddendraggin.posterous.com/
Arthur
> "Kim" <darwinexceptiontakethis...@verizon.net> wrote innews:h8eq1t$j44$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
I don't suppose that after the fourth "rape", she got a note from a
doctor advising her to use birth control next time she plans on
getting "raped"?
Lesmond
>
>
>I wonder about your outrage and being pissed off about her doings. She
>is probably just a woman who really likes to fuck, and is so
>overwhelmed by the moment that she forgets about safe sex.
You're the preemie mom?
--
If there's a nuclear winter, at least it'll snow.
Kajikit
<les...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:40:36 -0700, Les Albert wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>I wonder about your outrage and being pissed off about her doings. She
>>is probably just a woman who really likes to fuck, and is so
>>overwhelmed by the moment that she forgets about safe sex.
>
>You're the preemie mom?
I don't care if she screws everything that moves... that's her
business. But after three kids in as many years she should have the
correlation down now and she should know that she needs to use birth
control!
Lesmond
>
>Kim, the Federal Government won't pay for abortions except to protect
>the health of the mother or in the case of rape or incest. My health
>insurance, like all federal health insurance, is that way and I
>remember when it was changed. At that time, they even proposed not
>paying for contraception but that part of the proposal didn't make it.
>
>Not that the insurance is totally anti-woman, since the government
>requires all the plans to offer yearly well-woman exams and Pap smears
>and mastectomies,
I don't think I'd like yearly mastectomies.
Shawn Wilson
wrote:
> And Preemie Baby Grandma says "Oh, yeah, no, she's OK - we just told them
> that she was raped - Medicaid will pay for it if you say you were raped."
Yeah, same in Arizona.
D.F. Manno
"Kim" <darwinexcepti...@verizon.net> wrote:
> D.F. Manno wrote:
> > Kim wrote:
> >
> >> But the thing that bothers me is if the state wants to be in the
> >> business of providing abortions for free as a contraceptive tool
> >> under the theory that they are looking out for their financial
> >> interests, then why don't they just have a PSA saying "We Provide
> >> Abortions - Call Planned Parenthood today for yours!" Why hide that
> >> fact inside a loophole that apparently is being exploited? Why lie
> >> to the residents of the state with the whole "Only when medically
> >> necessary" bullshit?
> >
> > Because the RCC and the other anti-choice rackets would never allow
> > it.
>
> See, now that just makes me wonder what the state is hiding under some other
> loopholes because *I* wouldn't allow it.
There are probably plenty of loopholes out there for precisely the same
reason - some interest group would raise hell otherwise. If we had a
media that cared about something other than Jon & Kate, Michael Jackson,
and "You lied," it would be publicizing those loopholes. But we don't.
Snidely
> I don't even know her and I'm mad at her too... sometimes compulsory
> sterilization sounds like a very good idea!
Hmmm. My understanding is that having several abortions can make it
difficult to have a successful pregnancy afterwards, so the situation
may take care of itself ....
/dps
Boron Elgar
Bullshit.
Boron
Veronique
I've heard that, and I also heard, from a doctor not less, that having
one's tubes tied can bring on menopause.
Both are untrue.
Rick B.
news:yrfzbaqirevmbaar...@news.eternal-september.org:
After a couple years you'd get used to them.
Dover Beach
news:fdd8b80b-8001-4880...@y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
That might have been true in the dark ages of illegal abortions, but
it's not true now. My husband's former sister-in-law had seven
abortions, followed by one live birth that was taken away from her by
social services, and two more live births that she was allowed to
keep. The older one just got married. He and his bride are going to be
Christian missionaries.
--
Dover
Jerry Bauer
That *might* work.
From
http://www.informationpress.net/Health-and-Well-Being/205-karry-macdonal
d.html
aka
*****
"An Egyptian medical writing, from around 1850 B.C., lists fragments of
three prescriptions for contraceptive vaginal suppositories with an
interesting ingredient - mashed crocodile feces (early Arabic texts
cited elephant dung)! Modern research found that crocodile feces would
have been ineffective, but acidic elephant dung, used as a pessary, or
cervical covering, mixed with honey or olive oil, as directed, could be
a valid spermicide."
*****
I just wonder about the thought process -- "I'll just stuff some animal
poo in there."
But, you know, that would prevent a woman from getting pregnant by me.
--
Jerry Randal Bauer
D.F. Manno
Kajikit <kaj...@jagcon.com> wrote:
> There isn't technically an 'embryo' anywhere until it's implanted...
> All RU486 does is make sure that should there be a fertilised egg it
> can't implant, so it won't grow. If it's already managed to implant
> itself, you're too late and it won't help you, which is why it's
> crucial to get it ASAP without any beaurocratic delays. (btw, plenty
> of eggs fail to implant all by themselves, fertilised or not, which is
> why women don't get pregnant every month even if they're going at it
> like bunnies!)
I think you're confusing RU-486 with the morning-after pill.
Mifepristone (RU-486) _is_ an abortifacient:
<http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/facts_mifepristone.html>
The morning-after pill is just a higher-dosage version of oral
contraceptives. The morning-after pill works by preventing ovulation and
by thickening the cervical mucus. The mucus blocks sperm and keeps it
from joining with an egg.
<http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/emergency-contraception-m
orning-after-pill-4363.htm>
or <http://snipurl.com/rseii>
--
D.F. "the Planned Parenthood clinic escort training wasn't wasted" Manno
D.F. Manno
Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com> wrote:
> I wonder about your outrage and being pissed off about her doings. She
> is probably just a woman who really likes to fuck, and is so
> overwhelmed by the moment that she forgets about safe sex.
If she's that susceptible to being "overwhelmed by the moment," she
should be on a contraceptive that doesn't require application at the
time of being overwhelmed, like Norplant.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
"D.F. Manno" wrote:
>
> In article <824la5le86ui96am7...@4ax.com>,
> Kajikit <kaj...@jagcon.com> wrote:
>
> > There isn't technically an 'embryo' anywhere until it's implanted...
> > All RU486 does is make sure that should there be a fertilised egg it
> > can't implant, so it won't grow. If it's already managed to implant
> > itself, you're too late and it won't help you, which is why it's
> > crucial to get it ASAP without any beaurocratic delays. (btw, plenty
> > of eggs fail to implant all by themselves, fertilised or not, which is
> > why women don't get pregnant every month even if they're going at it
> > like bunnies!)
>
> I think you're confusing RU-486 with the morning-after pill.
> Mifepristone (RU-486) _is_ an abortifacient:
>
I posted this fact several days ago.
--
What I hate about flip flops is the flip and the flop.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Kajikit wrote:
>
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 09:17:43 -0400, "Kim"
> <darwinexcepti...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >So, remember I told you all that Preemie Baby's mom is pregnant again (third
> >time in less than 3 years?)
> >
> >Yeah, well, yesterday she went to Planned Parenthood and got an abortion.
> >Now, I don't want to start on the merits of abortion and whether or not it
> >should be legal or even acceptable, my rant and intent is for another avenue
> >of the debate.
> >
> >You see, when Paul came home and told me she had gone and gotten an
> >abortion, the very first question I asked him was "Where the fuck did she
> >get the money for that?" Paul said "HA! I asked that, too!"
> >
> >The answer? Why, MEDICAID paid for her abortion.
> >
> >Oh my fucking God.
>
> Better that she get an abortion now than that the state ends up
> supporting another unwanted kid for the next eighteen years...
>
So if there are some two year olds that the state is supporting, it
would be OK to leave them out on the freeway to get run over by a
bus? I only ask because that seems like where this logically goes.
And it isn't like the US has a surplus of healthy infants available
for adoption.
QueBarbara
wrote:
>He and his bride are going to be Christian missionaries.
Are there any other kind of missionaries? No, I'm not trying to be
pedantic; I'm just wondering.
--
QueBarbara
Boron Elgar
wrote:
Not so odd when viewed in comparison to other attempts at pharmacy or
medicaments at the time. Egyptians used donkey dung on wounds, IIRC.
There is a very bizarre history of items specifically used in attempts
at birth control or as abortificants down through the ages. Family
lore has it that my grandmother threw herself down a flight of stairs
in an attempt to terminate one pregnancy and might have used a bread
knife drawn across her wrists trying to end a different one.
>
>But, you know, that would prevent a woman from getting pregnant by me.
Eureka, lady!
Boron
Bob Ward
Hari Krishna, Baby!
Kim
And the pill makes you fat.
Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
> In article <dmnla5lgg6pla85jh...@4ax.com>,
> Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> I wonder about your outrage and being pissed off about her doings. She
>> is probably just a woman who really likes to fuck, and is so
>> overwhelmed by the moment that she forgets about safe sex.
>
> If she's that susceptible to being "overwhelmed by the moment," she
> should be on a contraceptive that doesn't require application at the
> time of being overwhelmed, like Norplant.
Are any Norplant-like contraceptives still available in the US?
Xho
Heather
<que.barb...@go-awaygmail.com> wrote:
Most religions seem to want to proselytize to at least some degree.
Buddhist monks went out from India spreading their religion. Islam is
a proselytizing religion and has people travelling specifically to
seek converts all over the world, particularly in Asia and Africa.
Even the Jews sought to convert people to their religion in bibilical
times. The Baha'i faith sends out missionaries, some of whom were
recently arrested in Iran. Then you have Hare Krishnas and the Moonies
accosting people in the street and Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and
Seventh Day adventists doorknocking in your neighbourhood, all trying
to convert people. I think all this qualifies as missionary activity.
--
Heather
Les Albert
wrote:
> Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com> wrote:
>> I wonder about your outrage and being pissed off about her doings. She
>> is probably just a woman who really likes to fuck, and is so
>> overwhelmed by the moment that she forgets about safe sex.
>If she's that susceptible to being "overwhelmed by the moment," she
>should be on a contraceptive that doesn't require application at the
>time of being overwhelmed, like Norplant.
People don't do what they should do.
Les
Kim
> On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:30:30 -0500, QueBarbara
> <que.barb...@go-awaygmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12 Sep 2009 22:56:23 GMT, Dover Beach <moon.b...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> He and his bride are going to be Christian missionaries.
>>
>> Are there any other kind of missionaries? No, I'm not trying to be
>> pedantic; I'm just wondering.
> Then you have Hare Krishnas and the Moonies
> accosting people in the street and Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and
> Seventh Day adventists doorknocking in your neighbourhood, all trying
> to convert people. I think all this qualifies as missionary activity.
I think Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses are
Christians.
Nick Spalding
on Sun, 13 Sep 2009 12:36:45 -0400:
> Heather wrote:
>
> > Then you have Hare Krishnas and the Moonies
> > accosting people in the street and Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and
> > Seventh Day adventists doorknocking in your neighbourhood, all trying
> > to convert people. I think all this qualifies as missionary activity.
>
> I think Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses are
> Christians.
They think they are, anyway.
--
Nick Spalding
Kim
You know what I love? That Jehovah's Witnesses never just refer to God as
"God" - they always say "Jehovah God." Like "God" is God's middle name. I
think it's cool that God has a middle name. Although I think that ups the
odds that he'll eventually become a serial killer - they always have middle
names.
Dover Beach
news:4aac5fdd$0$19377$ed36...@nr5-q3a.newsreader.com:
Sort of. There's Implanon. "Implanon is a thin, flexible plastic
implant about the size of a cardboard matchstick. It is inserted under
the skin of the upper arm. It protects against pregnancy for up to three
years."
It's not widely available, but may become more available after awhile.
The currently-available longer-lasting contraceptives are IUD, vaginal
ring, and Depo-Provera. The patch lasts for a week at a time, so that's
better than daily, anyway. And sterilization, of course, but that's not
nearly as easy to reverse.
Vaginal ring sounds like something you'd need Wisk for.
--
Dover
David Friedman
"Kim" <darwinexcepti...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Heather wrote:
> > On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:30:30 -0500, QueBarbara
> > <que.barb...@go-awaygmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 12 Sep 2009 22:56:23 GMT, Dover Beach <moon.b...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> He and his bride are going to be Christian missionaries.
> >>
> >> Are there any other kind of missionaries? No, I'm not trying to be
> >> pedantic; I'm just wondering.
>
> > Then you have Hare Krishnas and the Moonies
> > accosting people in the street and Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and
> > Seventh Day adventists doorknocking in your neighbourhood, all trying
> > to convert people. I think all this qualifies as missionary activity.
>
> I think Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses are
> Christians.
I think that is a debatable (and debated) claim for all three groups.
According to LDS doctrine, as I understand it, individual humans can
eventually become gods, each of his own universe. And they have
additional religious texts which I gather they give the same status to
as the bible.
Googling around, I found a web page with a fairly detailed history of
the Seventh Day Adventists, including a discussion of whether they are
Christians that quotes a long piece arguing they are not.
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Cults/sda/adventi.htm
Looking at the Wikipedia entry for Jehovah's Witnesses, they reject the
doctrine of the Trinity and immortality of the soul, which it could be
argued makes them non-Christian, although it looks as though they are
closer to conventional doctrine than the other two.
It's hard to draw sharp lines around religions. Are the Bahai
Christians? Muslims? Are Muslims Christians (they recognize Jesus as a
major prophet), Jews?
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of
_Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
Cambridge University Press.
Hidden Draggin
> Nick Spalding wrote:
>> Kim wrote, in <h8j76m$6fq$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
>> on Sun, 13 Sep 2009 12:36:45 -0400:
>>
>>> Heather wrote:
>>>
>>>> Then you have Hare Krishnas and the Moonies
>>>> accosting people in the street and Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and
>>>> Seventh Day adventists doorknocking in your neighbourhood, all
>>>> trying to convert people. I think all this qualifies as missionary
>>>> activity.
>>>
>>> I think Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses are
>>> Christians.
>>
>> They think they are, anyway.
>
> You know what I love? That Jehovah's Witnesses never just refer to
> God as "God" - they always say "Jehovah God." Like "God" is God's
> middle name. I think it's cool that God has a middle name. Although I
> think that ups the odds that he'll eventually become a serial killer
> - they always have middle names.
He already is a serial killer....ask the original inhabitants
of Isreal.
--
Hidden Draggin - Gilbert Hansford
Don't join dangerous cults, practice safe sects!
http://twitter.com/hiddendraggin
http://hiddendraggin.posterous.com/
Hidden Draggin
>
> Vaginal ring sounds like something you'd need Wisk for.
Its a really intrusive method of expressing an engagement.
Hactar
After about two years they'd cease to be a problem, anyway.
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP http://royalty.mine.nu:81
LEO: Now is not a good time to photocopy your butt and staple it
to your boss' face, oh no. Eat a bucket of tuna-flavored pudding
and wash it down with a gallon of strawberry Quik. -- Weird Al
bob ward
<darwinexcepti...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Veronique wrote:
>> On Sep 12, 1:39 pm, Snidely <snidely....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sep 11, 2:25 pm, Kajikit <kaji...@jagcon.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't even know her and I'm mad at her too... sometimes compulsory
>>>> sterilization sounds like a very good idea!
>>>
>>> Hmmm. My understanding is that having several abortions can make it
>>> difficult to have a successful pregnancy afterwards, so the situation
>>> may take care of itself ....
>>
>>
>> I've heard that, and I also heard, from a doctor not less, that having
>> one's tubes tied can bring on menopause.
>
>
>And the pill makes you fat.
But not taking it makes you fatter.
Dana Carpender
> Kajikit (kaj...@jagcon.com) wrote:
>> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>>> Lisa Ann <lisa...@stalnakershampine.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> My very, very Catholic ex-father-in-law, who was chief of staff
>>>> at a hospital in Akron and an OB/GYN, was known to perform D&Cs
>>>> on women who had a "congested uterus". It wasn't an abortion, it
>>>> was just that their uterus was congested and *that's* why they
>>>> hadn't had their period.
>>> RU486 isn't really an abortion drug. It's a period inducer. If
>>> there's an embryo in there, it's a victim along the way.
>>>
>>> A lot of people use RU486 in the way you describe.
>> There isn't technically an 'embryo' anywhere until it's
>> implanted... All RU486 does is make sure that should there be a
>> fertilised egg it can't implant, so it won't grow. If it's already
>> managed to implant itself, you're too late and it won't help you,
>> which is why it's crucial to get it ASAP without any beaurocratic
>> delays. (btw, plenty of eggs fail to implant all by themselves,
>> fertilised or not, which is why women don't get pregnant every
>> month even if they're going at it like bunnies!)
>
>
> got fertilized that month, but maybe I'm mistaken. You're right, of
> course, that even eggs that do get fertilized will often not implant.
> I'm not sure what the odds are. I'd be curious to find out.
>
Here are the odds on spontaneous abortion, according to Wikipedia:
Between 10% and 50% of pregnancies end in clinically apparent
miscarriage, depending upon the age and health of the pregnant woman.[3]
Most miscarriages occur very early in pregnancy, in most cases, they
occur so early in the pregnancy that the woman is not even aware that
she was pregnant. One study testing hormones for ovulation and pregnancy
found that 61.9% of conceptuses were lost prior to 12 weeks, and 91.7%
of these losses occurred subclinically, without the knowledge of the
once pregnant woman.[4]
So over half of fertilized eggs just naturally never become babies.
Dana
Dana Carpender
> the abortion?
Well, and her neglect of the kids she's got, and her attitude of
entitlement.
It sure sounds as if you think she should be punished
> by having to have the baby and raise it because she got pregnant
> outside of marriage and is supporting herself on the taxpayers'
> nickel.
>
>
Kim stated that she thought it would be better for the child to be put
up for adoption.
Dana
Dana Carpender
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 19:02:50 -0400, "Kim"
> <darwinexcepti...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Kajikit wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:27:59 -0400, "Kim"
>
>>>> But I do know I'm still pissed about it - I just can't put my finger
>>>> on WHY.
>>>> I'm betting it's just that it's HER.
>
>>> I don't even know her and I'm mad at her too... sometimes compulsory
>>> sterilization sounds like a very good idea!
>
>> fucking moron makes me at least feel justified in my own anger at the twit.
>> And makes me conclude that maybe my outrage and indignation IS just a result
>> of the whole thing being about this one girl in particular. Which I really
>> think it is.
>
>
> I wonder about your outrage and being pissed off about her doings. She
> is probably just a woman who really likes to fuck, and is so
> overwhelmed by the moment that she forgets about safe sex.
>
>
No freakin' excuse. Most people really like to fuck; most of us manage
not to get pregnant three times in three years when we don't even really
want a kid.
And if she *knows* she gets overwhelmed by the moment, then she needs to
go on the pill or get a Nuvaring or an IUD or something. There are lots
of contraceptive options that don't call for thinking about it in the
heat of the moment.
Dana
Dana Carpender
>
> Kajikit wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 09:17:43 -0400, "Kim"
>> <darwinexcepti...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> So, remember I told you all that Preemie Baby's mom is pregnant again (third
>>> time in less than 3 years?)
>>>
>>> Yeah, well, yesterday she went to Planned Parenthood and got an abortion.
>>> Now, I don't want to start on the merits of abortion and whether or not it
>>> should be legal or even acceptable, my rant and intent is for another avenue
>>> of the debate.
>>>
>>> You see, when Paul came home and told me she had gone and gotten an
>>> abortion, the very first question I asked him was "Where the fuck did she
>>> get the money for that?" Paul said "HA! I asked that, too!"
>>>
>>> The answer? Why, MEDICAID paid for her abortion.
>>>
>>> Oh my fucking God.
>> Better that she get an abortion now than that the state ends up
>> supporting another unwanted kid for the next eighteen years...
>>
> So if there are some two year olds that the state is supporting, it
> would be OK to leave them out on the freeway to get run over by a
> bus?
You're aware that many people do not consider a 3 or 4 week embryo to be
the moral equivalent of a toddler? Similarly, if you come on my
property and step on a sprouting acorn, breaking it to pieces, I'm
unlikely to notice. If you come on my property and chop down a 100 foot
oak tree, I'm gonna be pissed.
Dana
Dana Carpender
Yes, dear, we realize that. Doesn't change the fact that certain
degrees of not doing what you should do make you a reprehensible
asshole, worthy of the scorn of basically responsible people.
Dana
Dana Carpender
> Nick Spalding wrote:
>> Kim wrote, in <h8j76m$6fq$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
>> on Sun, 13 Sep 2009 12:36:45 -0400:
>>
>>> Heather wrote:
>>>
>>>> Then you have Hare Krishnas and the Moonies
>>>> accosting people in the street and Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and
>>>> Seventh Day adventists doorknocking in your neighbourhood, all
>>>> trying to convert people. I think all this qualifies as missionary
>>>> activity.
>>> I think Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses are
>>> Christians.
>> They think they are, anyway.
>
> You know what I love? That Jehovah's Witnesses never just refer to God as
> "God" - they always say "Jehovah God." Like "God" is God's middle name. I
> think it's cool that God has a middle name. Although I think that ups the
> odds that he'll eventually become a serial killer - they always have middle
> names.
>
>
Anyway, Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy didn't have middle names that we
heard of, anyway.
Dana Whiting Carpender "scary!"
Dana Carpender
And the IUD, the most popular contraceptive method of female OB/GYNs.
Dana
Dover Beach
news:h8jrmr$p8$6...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>> Sort of. There's Implanon. "Implanon is a thin, flexible plastic
>> implant about the size of a cardboard matchstick. It is inserted
>> under the skin of the upper arm. It protects against pregnancy for up
>> to three years."
>>
>> It's not widely available, but may become more available after
>> awhile.
>>
>> The currently-available longer-lasting contraceptives are IUD,
>> vaginal ring, and Depo-Provera. The patch lasts for a week at a
>> time, so that's better than daily, anyway. And sterilization, of
>> course, but that's not nearly as easy to reverse.
>
>
> And the IUD, the most popular contraceptive method of female OB/GYNs.
>
That would be why I listed it first in the paragraph of "other methods".
--
Dover
Dana Carpender
D'oh! <slaps forehead>
Dana
Lee Ayrton
> Les Albert wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 19:02:50 -0400, "Kim"
>> <darwinexcepti...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> Thanks for that. Knowing that someone else with a brain thinks she's a
>>> fucking moron makes me at least feel justified in my own anger at the
>>> twit. [snip]
>> I wonder about your outrage and being pissed off about her doings. She
>> is probably just a woman who really likes to fuck, and is so
>> overwhelmed by the moment that she forgets about safe sex.
>
> No freakin' excuse. Most people really like to fuck; most of us manage
> not to get pregnant three times in three years when we don't even really
> want a kid.
>
> And if she *knows* she gets overwhelmed by the moment, then she needs to
> go on the pill or get a Nuvaring or an IUD or something. There are lots
> of contraceptive options that don't call for thinking about it in the
> heat of the moment.
True enough, but they do require thinking at some point. If Kim's
description of the woman as a "fucking moron" is accurate then her
thinking ahead about contraception -- or anything else with consequences
-- is not in the set of [reasonable expectations].
Lee Ayrton
> Opus the Penguin wrote:
>> Is that the main reason? I'd guess the main reason is that no eggs
>> got fertilized that month, but maybe I'm mistaken. You're right, of
>> course, that even eggs that do get fertilized will often not implant.
>> I'm not sure what the odds are. I'd be curious to find out.
>
> Here are the odds on spontaneous abortion, according to Wikipedia:
>
> Between 10% and 50% of pregnancies end in clinically apparent
> miscarriage, depending upon the age and health of the pregnant woman.[3]
> Most miscarriages occur very early in pregnancy, in most cases, they
> occur so early in the pregnancy that the woman is not even aware that
> she was pregnant. One study testing hormones for ovulation and pregnancy
> found that 61.9% of conceptuses were lost prior to 12 weeks, and 91.7%
> of these losses occurred subclinically, without the knowledge of the
> once pregnant woman.[4]
>
> So over half of fertilized eggs just naturally never become babies.
But the rate for fertilized eggs is even higher, no? The Wiki article is
talking about pregancy and hormone production, which implies implantation,
but not all eggs implant.
The Merck Manual section on spontaneous abortion gives more conservative
numbers: http://www.merck.com/mmpe/sec18/ch263/ch263l.html
It reports that 10% to 15% of women with /confirmed/ pregnancy
spontaneously abort, but admits that the incidence is likely higher as
very early abortions are mistaken for a late menstrual period.
Opus the Penguin
> The Merck Manual section on spontaneous abortion gives more
> conservative numbers:
> http://www.merck.com/mmpe/sec18/ch263/ch263l.html
>
> It reports that 10% to 15% of women with /confirmed/ pregnancy
> spontaneously abort, but admits that the incidence is likely
> higher as very early abortions are mistaken for a late menstrual
> period.
Is that a theory or have they actually done the research? How would
they research it? Advertise that if you bring your late heavy flow to
the lab in a jar, we'll give you $20, then break out the microscope?
Poor graduate lab assistants.
--
Opus the Penguin
I have to say, the combination of firearms, homemade booze, and Billy
Ray playing the bagpipes spells "fun" to me - Richard R. Hershberger
Kajikit
<darwinexcepti...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Heather wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:30:30 -0500, QueBarbara
>> <que.barb...@go-awaygmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12 Sep 2009 22:56:23 GMT, Dover Beach <moon.b...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> He and his bride are going to be Christian missionaries.
>>>
>>> Are there any other kind of missionaries? No, I'm not trying to be
>>> pedantic; I'm just wondering.
>
>> Then you have Hare Krishnas and the Moonies
>> accosting people in the street and Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and
>> Seventh Day adventists doorknocking in your neighbourhood, all trying
>> to convert people. I think all this qualifies as missionary activity.
>
>I think Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses are
>Christians.
Who says???
--
My website - http://www.kajikitscorner.com
My cooking blog - http://kajikit.wordpress.com
My crafty blog - http://kajikit.blogspot.com
N Jill Marsh
wrote:
>The currently-available longer-lasting contraceptives are IUD, vaginal
>ring, and Depo-Provera. The patch lasts for a week at a time, so that's
>better than daily, anyway. And sterilization, of course, but that's not
>nearly as easy to reverse.
>
>Vaginal ring sounds like something you'd need Wisk for.
I used them for a couple of months, while waiting for my tubal, the
gyn gave them to me as freebies, bless her.
They were easy to insert, and exceptionally comfortable, to wear and
to encounter.
I can see people not remembering to swap them every month, though. In
a big way.
nj"what year is it?"m
--
Welcome, stranger, to the humble neighbourhoods.
Mark Steese
news:h8j8i8$gp4$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> Nick Spalding wrote:
>> Kim wrote, in <h8j76m$6fq$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
>> on Sun, 13 Sep 2009 12:36:45 -0400:
>>
>>> Heather wrote:
>>>
>>>> Then you have Hare Krishnas and the Moonies
>>>> accosting people in the street and Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and
>>>> Seventh Day adventists doorknocking in your neighbourhood, all
>>>> trying to convert people. I think all this qualifies as missionary
>>>> activity.
>>>
>>> I think Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses are
>>> Christians.
>>
>> They think they are, anyway.
>
> You know what I love? That Jehovah's Witnesses never just refer to God
> as "God" - they always say "Jehovah God." Like "God" is God's middle
> name. I think it's cool that God has a middle name. Although I think
> that ups the odds that he'll eventually become a serial killer - they
> always have middle names.
But if they only say "Jehovah God," that indicates that "God" is God's last
name. Somehow, that makes more sense to me.
--
Mark Steese
=======================================================================
PS: Your second question, you thought I forgot? I didn't. I never found the
banana slug. - William Least Heat-Moon
Mark Steese
> Kim wrote:
>> Nick Spalding wrote:
>>> Kim wrote, in <h8j76m$6fq$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
>>> on Sun, 13 Sep 2009 12:36:45 -0400:
>>>
>>>> Heather wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Then you have Hare Krishnas and the Moonies
>>>>> accosting people in the street and Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses
>>>>> and Seventh Day adventists doorknocking in your neighbourhood, all
>>>>> trying to convert people. I think all this qualifies as missionary
>>>>> activity.
>>>> I think Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses are
>>>> Christians.
>>> They think they are, anyway.
>>
>> You know what I love? That Jehovah's Witnesses never just refer to
>> God as "God" - they always say "Jehovah God." Like "God" is God's
>> middle name. I think it's cool that God has a middle name. Although I
>> think that ups the odds that he'll eventually become a serial killer
>> - they always have middle names.
>>
> But it's always Wayne.
The original story, as popularized by Chuck Shepherd of "News of the
Weird," only claims that Wayne is the most common middle name among
Americans convicted of murder; interesting to see that it's mutated into
a claim that all serial killers have the middle name Wayne. (Shepherd's
list can be seen at http://newsoftheweird.com/wayne.html.)
> Anyway, Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy didn't have middle names that we
> heard of, anyway.
Dahmer's middle name was Lionel; Bundy's was Robert. And that's why you
haven't heard those names: they're distinctly non-menacing.
Mark Steese
news:hj8qa5tg5vns4ge8i...@4ax.com:
What else do they need? Licenses?
Dana Carpender
just fucking lazy and entitled, no sympathy whatsoever.
Dana
Mark Steese
> Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' ) wrote:
>>
>> Kajikit wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 09:17:43 -0400, "Kim"
>>> <darwinexcepti...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So, remember I told you all that Preemie Baby's mom is pregnant
>>>> again (third time in less than 3 years?)
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, well, yesterday she went to Planned Parenthood and got an
>>>> abortion. Now, I don't want to start on the merits of abortion and
>>>> whether or not it should be legal or even acceptable, my rant and
>>>> intent is for another avenue of the debate.
>>>>
>>>> You see, when Paul came home and told me she had gone and gotten an
>>>> abortion, the very first question I asked him was "Where the fuck
>>>> did she get the money for that?" Paul said "HA! I asked that, too!"
>>>>
>>>> The answer? Why, MEDICAID paid for her abortion.
>>>>
>>>> Oh my fucking God.
>>> Better that she get an abortion now than that the state ends up
>>> supporting another unwanted kid for the next eighteen years...
>>>
>> So if there are some two year olds that the state is supporting, it
>> would be OK to leave them out on the freeway to get run over by a
>> bus?
>
> You're aware that many people do not consider a 3 or 4 week embryo to
> be the moral equivalent of a toddler?
A 3 or 4 week embryo is also a lot less annoying than a toddler.
> Similarly, if you come on my property and step on a sprouting acorn,
> breaking it to pieces, I'm unlikely to notice. If you come on my
> property and chop down a 100 foot oak tree, I'm gonna be pissed.
Well, sure -- if you have a 100-foot-tall oak tree on your property,
chances are it's over 300 years old. If you have an oak that's the tree
equivalent of a toddler on your property, chances are it's less than a
foot tall, and you might not even notice that it was gone. It's not a
very felicitous analogy, really.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Dana Carpender wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' ) wrote:
> >
> > Kajikit wrote:
> >> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 09:17:43 -0400, "Kim"
> >> <darwinexcepti...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> So, remember I told you all that Preemie Baby's mom is pregnant again (third
> >>> time in less than 3 years?)
> >>>
> >>> Yeah, well, yesterday she went to Planned Parenthood and got an abortion.
> >>> Now, I don't want to start on the merits of abortion and whether or not it
> >>> should be legal or even acceptable, my rant and intent is for another avenue
> >>> of the debate.
> >>>
> >>> You see, when Paul came home and told me she had gone and gotten an
> >>> abortion, the very first question I asked him was "Where the fuck did she
> >>> get the money for that?" Paul said "HA! I asked that, too!"
> >>>
> >>> The answer? Why, MEDICAID paid for her abortion.
> >>>
> >>> Oh my fucking God.
> >> Better that she get an abortion now than that the state ends up
> >> supporting another unwanted kid for the next eighteen years...
> >>
> > So if there are some two year olds that the state is supporting, it
> > would be OK to leave them out on the freeway to get run over by a
> > bus?
>
> You're aware that many people do not consider a 3 or 4 week embryo to be
> the moral equivalent of a toddler?
>
Of course. But you should be aware that that's not the issue being
discussed. There are people who think that a baby isn't really of
any real human value until it's several years old.
> Similarly, if you come on my
> property and step on a sprouting acorn, breaking it to pieces, I'm
> unlikely to notice.
>
I'm all for stepping on ACORN.
> If you come on my property and chop down a 100 foot
> oak tree, I'm gonna be pissed.
>
This is interesting because the sprout you didn't mind me killing
is "born" in some sense. The argument that Kajikit is making seems
to be that the state should get rid of any human creatures that it
can to avoid having to support them until 18. Why the limit on
getting rid of them is defined as "birth" is never made clear.
--
What I hate about flip flops is the flip and the flop.
Greg Goss
>it's one of those relationships
>where every other week they are "on again" - then on alternating weeks, they
>are "off again".
A friend of mine just broke up with her bad-news boyfriend. She's
never going to talk to him again.
I think that this is time #14. More than a year ago, I spent a couple
of nights on her couch in case he came back the night of the breakup.
on two nights of two of the breakups.
Are there 12 step programs to help people break off with a bad
boyfriend?
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Veronique
But I have sympathy for the kids generated. Sure, she shouldn't be
walking around loose (or tight, for that matter) but this is (yet
another) one of those cases where in order to ensure a better life
from the kids she keeps getting herself with, we have to infringe on
her liberties by...what? Locking her up? Forcibly injecting her with
NorPlant? Accidentally give her a tubal libation during the delivery?
V.
--
Veronique Chez Sheep
Veronique
> "Kim" <darwinexceptiontakethis...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >it's one of those relationships
> >where every other week they are "on again" - then on alternating weeks, they
> >are "off again".
>
> A friend of mine just broke up with her bad-news boyfriend. She's
> never going to talk to him again.
>
> I think that this is time #14. More than a year ago, I spent a couple
> of nights on her couch in case he came back the night of the breakup.
> on two nights of two of the breakups.
>
> Are there 12 step programs to help people break off with a bad
> boyfriend?
It's called therapy.
Veronique
> Dana Carpender <dcarp...@kivanospam.net> wrote innews:h8jrfr$p8$3...@news.eternal-september.org:
You're suggesting its appropriate to accidentally run over toddlers
with the lawn mower?
Paul L. Madarasz
<veroniq...@gmail.com> wrote, perhaps among other things:
>But I have sympathy for the kids generated. Sure, she shouldn't be
>walking around loose (or tight, for that matter) but this is (yet
>another) one of those cases where in order to ensure a better life
>from the kids she keeps getting herself with, we have to infringe on
>her liberties by...what? Locking her up? Forcibly injecting her with
>NorPlant? Accidentally give her a tubal libation during the delivery?
>
>
>V.
She only gets the tubal libation if she's a goddess.
--
Woodwork squeaks and out come the freaks.
David Friedman
<faaafd3f-e074-4489...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Veronique <veroniq...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But I have sympathy for the kids generated. Sure, she shouldn't be
> walking around loose (or tight, for that matter) but this is (yet
> another) one of those cases where in order to ensure a better life
> from the kids she keeps getting herself with, we have to infringe on
> her liberties by...what? Locking her up? Forcibly injecting her with
> NorPlant? Accidentally give her a tubal libation during the delivery?
The past history of the legal system quietly sterilizing a woman in the
belief that she shouldn't reproduce doesn't suggest it is a policy
likely to be used wisely. If you aren't familiar with the story, google
"three generations of imbeciles are enough."
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of
_Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
Cambridge University Press.
Veronique
wrote:
> In article
> <faaafd3f-e074-4489-b0d2-9d5157f61...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Veronique <veroniqueuni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > But I have sympathy for the kids generated. Sure, she shouldn't be
> > walking around loose (or tight, for that matter) but this is (yet
> > another) one of those cases where in order to ensure a better life
> > from the kids she keeps getting herself with, we have to infringe on
> > her liberties by...what? Locking her up? Forcibly injecting her with
> > NorPlant? Accidentally give her a tubal libation during the delivery?
>
> The past history of the legal system quietly sterilizing a woman in the
> belief that she shouldn't reproduce doesn't suggest it is a policy
> likely to be used wisely.
Well yes, that was my point.
Heather
<darwinexcepti...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Heather wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:30:30 -0500, QueBarbara
>> <que.barb...@go-awaygmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12 Sep 2009 22:56:23 GMT, Dover Beach <moon.b...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> He and his bride are going to be Christian missionaries.
>>>
>>> Are there any other kind of missionaries? No, I'm not trying to be
>>> pedantic; I'm just wondering.
>
>> Then you have Hare Krishnas and the Moonies
>> accosting people in the street and Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and
>> Seventh Day adventists doorknocking in your neighbourhood, all trying
>> to convert people. I think all this qualifies as missionary activity.
>
>I think Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses are
>Christians.
I think we should ask Opus about that. I am certainly no expert but
they don't really seem like Christians to me even though they do claim
to believe in Christ. I get the distinct impression the Christ is not
the centre of their religion.
--
Heather
Opus the Penguin
Opus the Penguin
It really depends who you ask. I would not consider Mormons or
Jehovah's Witnesses to be Christians because they deny the deity of
Christ. That's a pretty fundamental deal breaker and has been since
the Nicene Creed in 325. One must confess Christ as "Lord" to be a
Christian. And I think the Bible backs up pretty thoroughly the idea
that this means confessing him as truly and fully God.
The Seventh Day Adventists are a more vexed question. I'd have to
study the issue. I think that doctrinally they are heretics, but they
are Christian heretics, rather than from another religion. If someone
left the SDA church to come to a church I pastored, I believe I would
accept their baptism as valid. Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses, by
contrast, would need to be baptized. (This is sometimes called being
"re-baptized" but that misses the point being made.)
> I get the distinct impression the
> Christ is not the centre of their religion.
>
That's true of a lot of people who belong to denominations or
churches that I would consider broadly Christian. Sometimes you can't
really tell until some crisis forces them to reveal their true
values. But in the case of LDS and JW, I'd say the lack of
Christocentricity has been institutionalized. With SDA, I'd say it's
a daily reality, but if you pushed them, at least some of them would
show Christian colors.
--
Opus the Penguin
The forest is fraught with marauders. - Les Albert
Peter Ward
Of course not, it will make a mess of the lawn mower.
--
Peter, from outside the asylum
I'm an alien
email: usenet at peterward dot adsl24 dot co dot uk
The Official God FAQ: http://www.400monkeys.com/God/
N Jill Marsh
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>In article
><faaafd3f-e074-4489...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> Veronique <veroniq...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> But I have sympathy for the kids generated. Sure, she shouldn't be
>> walking around loose (or tight, for that matter) but this is (yet
>> another) one of those cases where in order to ensure a better life
>> from the kids she keeps getting herself with, we have to infringe on
>> her liberties by...what? Locking her up? Forcibly injecting her with
>> NorPlant? Accidentally give her a tubal libation during the delivery?
>
>The past history of the legal system quietly sterilizing a woman in the
>belief that she shouldn't reproduce doesn't suggest it is a policy
>likely to be used wisely. If you aren't familiar with the story, google
>"three generations of imbeciles are enough."
I suspect she is more than familiar with that; it seemed to be her
point.
nj"but"m
N Jill Marsh
<opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>That's true of a lot of people who belong to denominations or
>churches that I would consider broadly Christian. Sometimes you can't
>really tell until some crisis forces them to reveal their true
>values. But in the case of LDS and JW, I'd say the lack of
>Christocentricity has been institutionalized. With SDA, I'd say it's
>a daily reality, but if you pushed them, at least some of them would
>show Christian colors.
The Seventh Day Adventists accept the divinity of Christ as well as
the existence of the Holy Trinity. Actually, most of their
fundamental beliefs appear to be pretty mainstream evangelical-ish:
http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html
As with any denomination, there is a spectrum from conservative to
liberal with respect to their beliefs.
They celebrate on Saturdays, and are kind of obsessed with the Second
Coming, but that's the only thing that separate them from other
Protestant churches these days, although from what I understand their
original beliefs deviated quite a lot more than that, and perhaps
still do in the more conservative factions.
The SDA church is extremely common in some parts of the world - they
have a very concentrated presence throughout the West Indies and
Central America, for example. They are not regarded there as anything
but a Christian denomination with some odd practices. In fact, I
think it's kind of convenient for everyone in a religious Christian
country to have a denomination that's willing to work on Sundays.
nj"colourful enough for me"m
Kim
So - "Harvey" is menacing?
--
Kim
www.thedarwinexception.wordpress.com
* I wish I were a spy and evil people had come to my house and torn it
apart looking for secrets. Then at least I'd have an excuse for it
looking that way.*
Kim
> "Kim" <darwinexcepti...@verizon.net> wrote in
> news:h8j8i8$gp4$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> Nick Spalding wrote:
>>> Kim wrote, in <h8j76m$6fq$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
>>> on Sun, 13 Sep 2009 12:36:45 -0400:
>>>
>>>> Heather wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Then you have Hare Krishnas and the Moonies
>>>>> accosting people in the street and Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses
>>>>> and Seventh Day adventists doorknocking in your neighbourhood, all
>>>>> trying to convert people. I think all this qualifies as missionary
>>>>> activity.
>>>>
>>>> I think Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses are
>>>> Christians.
>>>
>>> They think they are, anyway.
>>
>> You know what I love? That Jehovah's Witnesses never just refer to
>> God as "God" - they always say "Jehovah God." Like "God" is God's
>> middle name. I think it's cool that God has a middle name. Although
>> I think that ups the odds that he'll eventually become a serial
>> killer - they always have middle names.
>
> But if they only say "Jehovah God," that indicates that "God" is
> God's last name. Somehow, that makes more sense to me.
True - I guess I was going under the theory that "Almighty" would be God's
last name. That's what my mother always called him.