Gary Cherone is a loser.
Nailzberg
WASHINGTON, June 2 /PRNewswire/ -- Gary Cherone of Van Halen has written an
open letter to Eddie Vedder, the lead singer of Pearl Jam. This letter
challenges Eddie's strong pro-abortion stance and his support for organizations
like Rock For Choice.
Gary is working with Rock For Life to bring a voice for the children to the
music world. "Many musicians have used their talent, money and fame to raise
money for the abortion industry," said Bryan Kemper, national director of Rock
For Life. "Thousands of babies have died, thanks to efforts of bands like Pearl
Jam and R.E.M. It's about time someone like Gary stood up for the rights of
these babies."
In his letter, Gary addresses issues such as women's rights and the beginning
of life. "Can there be only one true line of demarcation? One finite,
measurable point in time that differentiates life from non-life? Womanhood from
non-womanhood? Rights from no rights? Is it the moment of conception -- that
point when all of the above is set into motion? That moment when a separate
human individual with her own genetic code, needing only food, water and
oxygen, comes into existence? Indeed it is that point..."
Rock For Life and Gary want to send a message to the music world -- that life
is a precious gift and we do not have the right to take that life away in the
name of "choice."
"The child in the womb deserves a chance to make choices in his or her life,"
said Kemper. "Over one third of our generation has been slaughtered already. It
is time we stopped this."
For a complete copy of the "Open letter to Eddie Vedder," call Steve Sanborn at
540-659-4171 or get it at www.rockforlife.org.
Nailzberg
This from a guy that sings "Running With the Devil." What a disgrace.
Mel Wright
do, however, think that he has a right to stand up for what he believes in, and try
to change something if he thinks it's wrong. Just like Pearl Jam and REM do. I
may or may not agree with his views, but he has a right to fight for them. I don't
think it's cool he slagged off Pearl Jam and REM, though. He should be intelligent
enough to give a good argument for what he believes in without attacking people who
believe differently. Well, in a perfect world, anyway.
Mel
~*Freebird*~
Lukin13 <luk...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990602203556...@ng-xa1.aol.com...
> ok kids,
> I am going out on a limb here because I know most of you are pro choice
but I
> am definately 100% PRO LIFE. I think that any sort of abortion is wrong.
I
> know I have absolutely defense against the whole rape thing...but I still
> believe that it is wrong. I have some other points but I will save them
until
> someone comes after me.
>
> -Dan
>
I just want to say that I agree with you in being pro life. I believe that
abortion is perhaps the most twisted form of murder. I'm glad there are guys
like Gary Cherone around to present the other side of things, and I
certainly hope that people are intelligent enough to decide for themselves
instead of taking Eddie's opinion as gospel.
Rob
Mel Wright
this: I am pro-choice, but I hope the choice is life. How's that? See the thing
is....these abortion debates go nowhere. You are not going to change my mind, I
am not going to change your mind, etc. It's too much of a deep seated and
personal belief, and no amount of arguing, cajoling, flaming, or belittingling
will make anyone change what they believe. Only facts can do that.
I'd just hate to see this thread turn into another "vegetarian" thread, where a
few people get stomped on for what they believe. If we do this, could we at least
agree to be civil, and not call each other murderers, etc? Put up some facts.
Mel <who is in no way implying that Dan accused anyone of anything! :-)
Apples
Foolup <foo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990602231248...@ng-fp1.aol.com...
> Let me get this straight, just b/c Gary Cherone has an opinion
differing
> from yours he is a loser.
> Or is he a loser b/c he has a different opinion from Pearl Jam. Either
way
> you sound like an ignorant moron.
no he's a loser because he attacked Pearl Jam and REM in typical loser
fashion- spouting of sensational garbage with no factual backup
-max
Lukin13
On2Legs
Vedder is pro-choice doesn't mean I am going to blindly follow his lead. He has
the right to his opinion and I have the right to mine.
-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-
Stand behind the stripe.
There will be order.
So give up your mind.
-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-
oshuns
someone tell gary that pro choice does not mean pro abortion. i think most
people that are full of heart don't find much joy in abortion. its about a
woman's right to decide.
steph
Nailzberg <nail...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990602184136...@ng-fw1.aol.com>...
JettKarma
>Yeah, I think Gary is a loser, but it's only because I think he sucks musically. I
>do, however, think that he has a right to stand up for what he believes in, and try
>to change something if he thinks it's wrong. Just like Pearl Jam and REM do. I
>may or may not agree with his views, but he has a right to fight for them. I don't
>think it's cool he slagged off Pearl Jam and REM, though. He should be intelligent
>enough to give a good argument for what he believes in without attacking people who
>believe differently. Well, in a perfect world, anyway.
>
>Mel
******************************************
Well, I agree that it's this guy's right to say whatever he wants.
But, I do notice a difference between Eddie Vedder and this Gary
guy...Eddie Vedder speaks to the issue, not to some recognizable
"competing" "personality." Gary's letter got a lot more attention
because it is an "open letter" to Ed specifically than if he were just
to say what he thinks and publish it somewhere. Bottom line, he's
using Pearl Jam to articulate his point of view--which, by the way--I
thought was worded outrageously pompously...."a mere tautology"?
Good, Gary. I'm glad you own a nice dictionary! Got some 50-cent
words, there! :)
Another point I'd like to make, sadly, is that I see so much
right-wing influence in politics, etc., all around me everywhere I
look. This morning, Cal Thomas had this article in praise of prayer
equating the right pray in public and impose it on others (forcing the
dominant doctrine on everyone regardless of religion or lack thereof)
to a civil rights movement. Silly me! And I thought this country was
partly founded on the right to religious freedom--which includes
freedom from the dominant religion and, in fact, includes freedom
*from* religion, as well. Shows what a dip I am, I guess. I think
people like Gary look around and see what's popular. And right now,
influence from the right is at an all time high--pushes for churches
to do our human services (Gore jumped in, too--doing what a man has to
do, no doubt <g>), religious schools to educate our young (it's one
way very effective way to control the past and, therefore, the
future)--etc. Government money will flow straight from the public to
be used to fund a private system of ideology. It's nice to see Gary
apparently bravely cashing in.
--Jett
P.S. Did you know that George Bush, Jr., within the last year or so
has bought up somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 domain names,
especially the likes of BushSuck.com, with the possible motive (as it
might appear to some to some) of making it harder for people to freely
say negative things about him? I'd keep that in mind next election
when he's up on his pulpit telling us all how much he loves and stands
for freedom.
A related story:
Beating Around the Bush
by Heidi Kriz
11:10 a.m. 21.May.99.PDT
Presidential hopeful George W. Bush has
seen the enemy -- and it isn't Al Gore.
Bush has asked the Federal Election
Commission to crack down on a satirical
Web site created by Zack Exley, a
self-described "Christian who loathes
hypocrisy," and the anti-establishment
Web design group RTMark.
Exley's site is at:
One of the few addresses Bush has not bought, it seems. I highly
recommend it. :)
Foolup
oshuns
Foolup <foo...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990602231248...@ng-fp1.aol.com>...
well i'm not the original poster in this thread and i think thats who you
apply your statement to, even tho you replied to my post about how pro
choice doesn't mean pro abortion. i think gary cherone is being called a
'loser' because of his methods, so well stated earlier by jett. and
calling someone pro choice pro abortion is just juvenile name calling...for
an adult, rather loser-ish behavior.
s
oshuns
grr. this is really making me burn.
i went and sat on the couch to watch conan but couldn't get this off my
mind.
the nerve of that fucking guy. the incredulous hypocrisy.
he is making a statement, using his celebrity in a way that he feels will
positively affect people and society. eddie does the same thing. HOW DARE
HE attack him for it.
for doing the exact same thing.
jackass.
using ed's name to gain attention, instead of just putting the faith in his
argument. i hope ed is having a good laugh (after possibly putting a fist
through a wall). i hope he doesn't grant a reply to that at all. he owes
no explanation.
fuck i am really mad.
:)
steph
Volemnity
hmm..disturbing stuff, fortunately, there are plenty of ways to get across the
idiocy of Bush besides the one's he's bought up. Crap.
anyway,
more later
V
>
>
>
oshuns
furthermore (having trouble letting this go) i suspect that this will
effect ed's set at tfc...not that for one minute eddie will draw attention
away from the cause at tfc, but that he'll probably make some snide comment
in reference to cherone or maybe dedicate a song to him, like leaving here
or ritfw, or something. ya think?
either way, dan, i called this first. it should count for your contest.
:)
s
MattA75
no f'ing way does that count-besides, the contest is seeing who can name the
MOST SONGS on the setlist, and trying to outguess Dan
damn Canadians, can never do anything right
;)
visit http://www.angelfire.com/ma/BestofYield98tapes/index.html for information
on Opening Band For The Sun, a Best of 98 compilation of the North American
Tour, with orders now being taken!!!!
oshuns
MattA75 <mat...@aol.comhatespam> wrote in article
<19990603011431...@ng-bh1.aol.com>...
> >either way, dan, i called this first. it should count for your contest.
>
> no f'ing way does that count-
oh man, can you guys smell matt's jealousy that i brilliantly came up with
this first? i can smell it all the way over here, in CANADA.
:P:P:P
it SO should count.
besides, the contest is seeing who can name the
> MOST SONGS on the setlist, and trying to outguess Dan
> damn Canadians, can never do anything right
> ;)
>
all right here is the song list to accompany my bonus guess of ed
mentioning el loser grande. (in no order, but probably closer to what will
come than what matt guessed):
last kiss
soldier of love
leaving here
long road
no way (ya, no way and that should be the one where he tells cherone to
grow a clue)
untitled > mfc
jeremy (timely with the littleton shit)
corduroy
daughter
hard to imagine
dan, you got that? please verify reception.
how bout you matt? CAN YOU FEEL IT?
steph
:)
jewishpun...@my-deja.com
HORRIBLE SEXIST DINOSAUR BAND. And all those asshole men that have
already posted after my post answer me this:
Do you believe in premarital sex?
Have you ever had premarital sex outside of masturbation?
Because if you are having sex, then your girl might become pregnant,
and it sounds like most of you losers don't make enough money nor have
the maturity to raise a child.
Also, what about those stupid Van Halen songs about fucking? They even
have an album called F.U.C.K., so if they advocate sex so often and
made a lot of money (say millions and millions), you would think they
would act responsibly. But no, of course not.
By the way, it occurs to me that since GC is considered talentless by a
lot of VH fans that he is probably doing this for publicity. Think
about it. Controversy sells records, and GC is not well liked, nor is
he known for being particularly bright.
In addition, when he was with Extreme (yuck!) did he not partake of
groupies??? I think not. What about Eddie VH, and his on-going affair
with a woman other than his wife???? Hmmmmm??? Wonder if SHE got
pregnant, I know she doesn't have a kid from him, and I can't imagine
that jerk (EVH) thinking about wearing a condom either because he's
too "macho"!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Nailzberg
>from yours he is a loser.
> Or is he a loser b/c he has a different opinion from Pearl Jam.
I believe Gary Cherone is a loser because of his method of arguement. Mainly,
he doesn't present one. Missing from his prose is an actual discussion of the
issue. I don't care what side of the issue he's on, and I don't care if he
has a difference with Ed. I think he's a loser because he presents an unbased
arguement. And I don't think it's right of him to call Eddie out, because
Eddie has the right to his opinion and support of his side as much as Gary
does.
But mostly, I think he's a loser cause he's a shitty singer.
>Either way
>you sound like an ignorant moron.
How you could form such an opinion, seeing as my post contained a press release
and a signature, is beyond me. You probably get that "Ass out of U and Me"
line a lot.
Nailzberg
"Fact is richer than diction." - J.L. Austin
Jason
I don't think that abortion is the best way of dealing with a bad situation and the
reason why I really don't like abortions are because it seems like its the same people
getting the abortions all the time. A life is taken because these people don't take
responsibility.
But here is why I am pro-choice. Although I believe that abortion is an ugly
solution, I do not believe that every woman should not be allowed to make that choice
for herself. Although abortion is an ugly solution, a lot of these situations are even
uglier. For example, babies that are born from mothers who were raped or hooked on
crack so bad that their baby is basically a vegetable for life.
From my experience with this topic it always seems like a dead end issue because
the pro-life people are always saying that abortion is terrible while the pro-choice
people agree with most everything they say 100%. The only difference is that pro-life
say that nobody should have the right to choose for theirself, and the pro-choice people
say that although its terrible who are we as individuals to decide what everybody else
should do based on our own opinion.
That's just me though...
S K Nicholls
seems to become more rightwing every election. As someone else once
remarked (I don't know who), if the Bill of Rights had to be approved by
the
American public today, they would probably not make it in the constitution.
Too radical.
Before I run off at the mouth on politics, which I have been known to do,
just wanted to note that the site you mentioned seems to have been taken
down. When I clicked on it, it brings up a George Bush exploratory committee
website, praising all things Bush. Damn.
About Cherone, I respect his opinion. I don't agree with it, and I thought
his letter was pretentious. But why an open letter to Eddie Vedder, is he
now the official spokesman for the pro-choice movement?
Sally
JettKarma <mstr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:375beb9e...@news.earthlink.net...
> ******************************************
Jack Long
>
> someone tell gary that pro choice does not mean pro abortion. i think most
> people that are full of heart don't find much joy in abortion. its about a
> woman's right to decide.
> steph
>
> Nailzberg <nail...@aol.com> wrote in article
> <19990602184136...@ng-fw1.aol.com>...
> >
> > WASHINGTON, June 2 /PRNewswire/ -- Gary Cherone of Van Halen has written
No one is pro-abortion, some people just believe women should have the
right to choose, what they do with their own body. That's where I
stand. Government, or anyone else should not get involved in someone's
personal business.
Mel Wright
jewishpun...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I agree. GC is a stupid jerk! In addition to being TALENTLESS and in a
> HORRIBLE SEXIST DINOSAUR BAND. And all those asshole men that have
> already posted after my post answer me this:
I didn't read any posts by any men that deserved to be called assholes.
They stated their opinion, and tried to back it up. Kudos to them.
> Do you believe in premarital sex?
Premarital sex does not necessarily equal pregnancy, does not necessarily
equal abortion. Total non-sequitor.
> Have you ever had premarital sex outside of masturbation?
Same answer.
> Because if you are having sex, then your girl might become pregnant,
> and it sounds like most of you losers don't make enough money nor have
> the maturity to raise a child.
How is it you think you have enough information about any of the guys on
this newsgroup to make such an outrageous statement? Just downright silly.
> Also, what about those stupid Van Halen songs about fucking? They even
> have an album called F.U.C.K., so if they advocate sex so often and
> made a lot of money (say millions and millions), you would think they
> would act responsibly. But no, of course not.
Gary Cherone didn't sing on that album. This was a letter from Gary.
Making lots of money in the rock business DOES NOT mean they would act
responsibly. That would be far from the norm. Look at Axl Rose, for
crying out loud. Or Scott Weiland. Or any multitude of other rock stars.
> By the way, it occurs to me that since GC is considered talentless by a
> lot of VH fans that he is probably doing this for publicity. Think
> about it. Controversy sells records, and GC is not well liked, nor is
> he known for being particularly bright.
Well, I have to admit, this occured to me right off, as well. Gotta do
something for those dipping record sales. I like to give people the
benefit of the doubt, though, that's just me.
> In addition, when he was with Extreme (yuck!) did he not partake of
> groupies??? I think not. What about Eddie VH, and his on-going affair
> with a woman other than his wife???? Hmmmmm??? Wonder if SHE got
> pregnant, I know she doesn't have a kid from him, and I can't imagine
> that jerk (EVH) thinking about wearing a condom either because he's
> too "macho"!
I imagine he did carry on with some groupies in his Extreme days. I think
all the hair bands did. However, he's getting older, and it's possible he
may have changed. Hey, it's possible! I don't know anything about Eddie
V's extramarital affair, since I don't keep up on VH gossip, but it seems
that Val has had enough with his drinking, and she'd kick his ass to the
curb if he were fucking around. I don't know, just what I like to think.
I'm probably totally naive there.
Mel
Mike Bosmay
nail...@aol.com (Nailzberg) Gary Cherone is a loser.
Actually David Lee Roth sings that song. Gary never sang it on the last
tour!!!!!!!!!
~*Freebird*~
> right to choose, what they do with their own body. That's where I
> stand. Government, or anyone else should not get involved in someone's
> personal business.
With all due respect, I believe that the above is a bullshit arguement. It
is not the woman's "own body" it is also the body of her child. The
government sure as hell gets involved in cases of infanticide, and it's
flawed logic to suggest that a child in the womb doesn't deserve the same
legal protection as a child who has left the womb. Do you honestly believe
that a fetus does not become a human life until it passes through the
vagina? Whether it's in there or out in the world it is the same life and
the same person.
People are often grossly uneducated with regard to the actual procedures
involved in abortion. Babies are torn apart with forceps, stabbed, literally
crushed to death inside the womb. This often takes place after the nervous
system of the child has begun devoloping and it no doubt causes excruciating
pain. There is medical footage available for those who actually have the
conviction to educate themselves before advocating pro choice. If you can
watch that footage and still believe what they do is ok, then you must have
no soul.
"Pro Choice" means something different to me. It means we have the freedom
to choose sexual activity or chastity. It is NOT a license to act
irresponsibly and commit atrocious and inhumane acts all because we are
unprepared to deal with the consequences of our own poor judgement.
Thank you,
Rob
JettKarma
>I agree. GC is a stupid jerk! In addition to being TALENTLESS and in a
>HORRIBLE SEXIST DINOSAUR BAND. And all those asshole men that have
>already posted after my post answer me this:
>
>Do you believe in premarital sex?
>
>Have you ever had premarital sex outside of masturbation?
>
>Because if you are having sex, then your girl might become pregnant,
>and it sounds like most of you losers don't make enough money nor have
>the maturity to raise a child.
>
>Also, what about those stupid Van Halen songs about fucking? They even
>have an album called F.U.C.K., so if they advocate sex so often and
>made a lot of money (say millions and millions), you would think they
>would act responsibly. But no, of course not.
>
>By the way, it occurs to me that since GC is considered talentless by a
>lot of VH fans that he is probably doing this for publicity. Think
>about it. Controversy sells records, and GC is not well liked, nor is
>he known for being particularly bright.
>
>In addition, when he was with Extreme (yuck!) did he not partake of
>groupies??? I think not. What about Eddie VH, and his on-going affair
>with a woman other than his wife???? Hmmmmm??? Wonder if SHE got
>pregnant, I know she doesn't have a kid from him, and I can't imagine
>that jerk (EVH) thinking about wearing a condom either because he's
>too "macho"!
********************************
Some very wry observations there...some very good ones. I was kind of
hoping someone would come along and give good old Gary the mother of
kicks in the ass...and I got my wish. <g> GC's hypocrisy comes back
to bite him on that kicked ass, courtesy of one very bright
jewishpunkrockgirl. When you do think of all the millions that VH
have made off of the objectification of women and the promotion of
irresponsible sex, it boggles the mind that GC would have the nerve to
say anything, no less imply he is "protecting" women. Ack!
Thanks for the post.
--Jett
JettKarma
>Excellent post. Its scary the direction we are heading in, this country
>seems to become more rightwing every election. As someone else once
>remarked (I don't know who), if the Bill of Rights had to be approved by
>the
>American public today, they would probably not make it in the constitution.
>Too radical.
>
>Before I run off at the mouth on politics, which I have been known to do,
>just wanted to note that the site you mentioned seems to have been taken
>down. When I clicked on it, it brings up a George Bush exploratory committee
>website, praising all things Bush. Damn.
>
>About Cherone, I respect his opinion. I don't agree with it, and I thought
>his letter was pretentious. But why an open letter to Eddie Vedder, is he
>now the official spokesman for the pro-choice movement?
>
>Sally
>
>>
>> Beating Around the Bush
>> by Heidi Kriz
>>
>> 11:10 a.m. 21.May.99.PDT
>> Presidential hopeful George W. Bush has
>> seen the enemy -- and it isn't Al Gore.
>>
>> Bush has asked the Federal Election
>> Commission to crack down on a satirical
>> Web site created by Zack Exley, a
>> self-described "Christian who loathes
>> hypocrisy," and the anti-establishment
>> Web design group RTMark.
>>
>> Exley's site is at:
>>
>> http://www.gwbush.com/
>>
>> One of the few addresses Bush has not bought, it seems. I highly
>> recommend it. :)
*******************************************************
Thanks for saying nice stuff about my post!!
One little thing...you scared me!! I clicked on my own link...and no,
it's the right one. Take a little closer look. ;)
George Bush....valuable, educated, prosperous..... :))) Exploratory
Committee....oh, the probing! <g> The humor is a bit subtle there,
but the poor site has been hit by Bush lawsuits. :)
The site's perpetrators are RTMark (as in 'registered trademark'), a
"heinous" group of culture jammers, from the looks of it.
Also, I think you are dead right about the constitution; I sincerely
doubt it would be approved today. Let's face it...it *is* a radical
document (radically on target!), written by people who were fleeing
oppression (not good for them, but good for us).
Thanks again for writing and telling us what you think. I love a good
political rant!! (Ooooh...now my secret's out!! lol!!)
--Jett
stonedl...@my-deja.com
Ellen S.
>
>No one is pro-abortion, some people just believe women should have the
>right to choose, what they do with their own body. That's where I
>stand. Government, or anyone else should not get involved in someone's
>personal business.
"No one is pro-abortion"
Not always. I am, without question, pro-choice. And sometimes I am
pro-abortion as there are a number of situations where abortion seems
(to me) to be the moral decision. I don't perceive abortion to be
"ugly" as others here in this newsgroup have called it. And while may
others call abortion "murder", I look at the other side and call it a
lifesaver.
To each his/her own, I guess.
----
Ellen S. in NYC
Angel
> People are often grossly uneducated with regard to the actual
procedures
> involved in abortion. Babies are torn apart with forceps, stabbed,
literally
> crushed to death inside the womb. This often takes place after the
nervous
> system of the child has begun devoloping and it no doubt causes
excruciating
> pain. There is medical footage available for those who actually have
the
> conviction to educate themselves before advocating pro choice. If you
can
> watch that footage and still believe what they do is ok, then you must
have
> no soul.
*People are also often grossly uneducated about the realities of
pregnancy and childbirth. But it's ok for a woman to suffer the
excruciating pain of labor, not to mention the sunny hell of pregnancy,
regardless of her feelings, even if she did'nt fall pregnant by acting
in any way irresponsibly, right?
> "Pro Choice" means something different to me. It means we have the
freedom
> to choose sexual activity or chastity. It is NOT a license to act
> irresponsibly and commit atrocious and inhumane acts all because we
are
> unprepared to deal with the consequences of our own poor judgement.
>
> Thank you,
> Rob
>
>
*Once again the notion that unwanted pregnancies are the domain of
irresponsible women. Bullshit. What about rape? What about a married
couple whose condom breaks? It's so easy to take that holier than thou
attitude when you're discussing this issue when you're in no danger
whatsoever of suffering the physical consequences of it yourself, is'nt
it? "Woman" does not equal "Incubator".
-Angel
Mike Bosmay
jewishpun...@my-deja.com Re: Gary Cherone is a loser.
<<I agree. GC is a stupid jerk!>>Did you meet him, if not then you can't
say that!!!!
<< In addition to being TALENTLESS and in a HORRIBLE SEXIST DINOSAUR
BAND. >>
Not really a dinosaur band yet. Van Halen may have been sexist with Roth
but Sammy and Gary are far from sexist.
<<Also, what about those stupid Van Halen songs about fucking?>>
I would rather hear songs about good times and women than listening to
bands like Pearl Jam. PJ and etc act miserable when they are really
happy to take the money and have fame. People are sick of the faking
that is why straight ahead rock bands are in the comeback. People want
to see a show full of energy and action not bands staring at their
shoes!!!!
<< They even have an album called F.U.C.K., so if they advocate sex so
often and made a lot of money (say millions and millions), >>
It was called For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge to piss off the censorship
action taking place at that time. Van Halen may advocate sex but PJ
advocate blowing the kids away in school. Which is better to advocate?
<<By the way, it occurs to me that since GC is considered talentless by
a lot of VH fans that he is probably doing this for publicity. Think
about it. Controversy sells records, >>
they are not on tour they don't have a new release out so why would he
want publicity???
<<and GC is not well liked, nor is he known for being particularly
bright.>>
Actually Gary is well known for being bright!!!!
<<In addition, when he was with Extreme (yuck!) did he not partake of
groupies??? I think not.>>
Eddie Vedder screws groupies too, so what is the difference???
<< What about Eddie VH, and his on-going affair with a woman other than
his wife???? Hmmmmm??? Wonder if SHE got pregnant,>>
Who can you prove this????
<< I know she doesn't have a kid from him, >>
Wolfgang Eddie and Val do have a kid. If any of the guys in PJ are
married you think that they don't cheat, ha!!!!!!
<<and I can't imagine that jerk (EVH) thinking about wearing a condom
either because he's too "macho"! .>>
Eddie isn't a macho guy he is very quiet!!!!
I should be expressing
All my inner repression
I guess depression's now a cultural thing
My record company says
Blow my brains out my head
I make the cover of every magazine--Bret Michaels 1995
Jody English
think a woman becomes pregnant through no actions of her own. Like she
wakes up one day and BAM!! she's pregnant. If that was the case, your
arguements might have merit. But there is a choice involved before
abortion. When a woman decides to have sex, she has CHOSEN that having
sex is more important to her than the possibility of becoming pregnant.
What happens to a woman anyway if she decides that under no
circumstances does she want to be pregnant, so she doesn't have sex?
Does she starve? Does she become sick? Does she shrivel up and stop
living? No, she just avoids having to get an abortion. But I see in this
society that's too much to ask from a woman. We get angry at men for
running from pregnancy but not at women. Doesn't that seem more than a
little hypocritical?
Shannon
So then you are for abortion if the woman was not in a position to
make the choice to have sex? Raped, a victim of incest (which is
really just rape anyway, I guess), or if the birth control fails, etc.
It's not always the woman's choice to have sex, and it's not always
due to irresponsible behavior.
Shannon
"There's always a bigger fish."
Jody English
I'll try to make this short. First, let's take one of your last
sentences. You believe you should get to have sex without the
consequence of having children. This right here says more than I could
ever say. As for the rest of your post you took every extreme rare
situation there is and stated as if it's the norm. When you and I know
for a fact the norm is women having abortions out of conveniance. This
fact obviously bothers you, but the question is why? Why should you care
if a woman has 10 or 20 abortions. Be consistent and tell me that it
doesn't matter how many abortions a woman has as long as thats her
choice. Otherwise, if you believe any different, your beliefs and views
begin to unravel.
And how about an abortion at 5, 6, 7, months. Do have any problem with
these? I suggest you be consistant and say no, but for some reason when
people can see arms and legs and body parts it disturbs them when they
think of an abortion. I wonder why? After all, isn't a womans' right to
choose the most important thing?
MAD
wrote:
My stance is pro life except for situations in which their was a rape
or incest or it may seriously endanger a womans life to have the baby.
One thing I would have a severe problem with is If I get a girl
pregnant in consentual sex and she chooses to have an abortion I have
no say in what happens with what is also my child.
I think the best solution for women who are thinking of abortion that
haven't been raped or have any serious circumstances concerning their
pregnancy is adoption. How can anyone sit here and say it's better for
the kid to die rather than be put up for adoption?
The web page that will change your life
http://www.mindspring.com/~swanlee/endof.htm
Laurie Hester
MAD wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jun 1999 19:04:02 GMT, sr...@mindspring.com (Shannon )
> wrote:
>
> >TEng...@webtv.net (Jody English) wrote:
> >
> >>I swear if I didn't know better, from reading all these posts, I would
> >>think a woman becomes pregnant through no actions of her own. Like she
> >>wakes up one day and BAM!! she's pregnant. If that was the case, your
> >>arguements might have merit. But there is a choice involved before
> >>abortion. When a woman decides to have sex, she has CHOSEN that having
> >>sex is more important to her than the possibility of becoming pregnant.
> >>What happens to a woman anyway if she decides that under no
> >>circumstances does she want to be pregnant, so she doesn't have sex?
> >>Does she starve? Does she become sick? Does she shrivel up and stop
> >>living? No, she just avoids having to get an abortion. But I see in this
> >>society that's too much to ask from a woman. We get angry at men for
> >>running from pregnancy but not at women. Doesn't that seem more than a
> >>little hypocritical?
> >
> >
> >So then you are for abortion if the woman was not in a position to
> >make the choice to have sex? Raped, a victim of incest (which is
> >really just rape anyway, I guess), or if the birth control fails, etc.
> >
> >
> >It's not always the woman's choice to have sex, and it's not always
> >due to irresponsible behavior.
>
> My stance is pro life except for situations in which their was a rape
> or incest or it may seriously endanger a womans life to have the baby.
That's fairly hypocritical. Either you believe the fetus is a person or not.
It is innocent of the rape. So therefore, you must be saying that if *you*
think there is a good reason, it's okay to kill a fetus. But a woman faced
with a life of poverty, that's *not* a good reason. What hypocrisy!
> One thing I would have a severe problem with is If I get a girl
> pregnant in consentual sex and she chooses to have an abortion I have
> no say in what happens with what is also my child.
Then I suggest you take precautions if you don't want that to happen. Take
some fucking responsibility. You can't get a woman pregnant accidentally, and
then feel you can force her to have the baby! If you don't take
responsibility for preventing an unwanted pregnancy, you have to face the
consequences; that the woman may not choose to have your baby.
>
>
> I think the best solution for women who are thinking of abortion that
> haven't been raped or have any serious circumstances concerning their
> pregnancy is adoption. How can anyone sit here and say it's better for
> the kid to die rather than be put up for adoption?
Because any woman who has ever given a child up for adoption has pain for the
rest of her life. You cannot even begin to imagine how a woman bonds with her
child during pregnancy. It is much more painful to never see that baby grow
up, after having gone through with the pregnancy. Only a man can wish that
kind of pain on a woman. Besides, only white, healthy babies are wanted.
Mixed race and non-white, non-healthy babies get shuffled around the foster
care system, and suffer greatly. So, do you think only white women who get
knocked up by white men should be forced to have babies and give them up for
adoption? Watch the movie, "The Handmaiden's Tale".
Jody English
this lingo about the mans' responsibility, but you allow a woman to cop
out with an abortion. Surely you can see the fucked reasoning there. But
maybe not.
And then you go off about how noone wants black or hispanic babies, only
white babies. This is the biggest load of shit you've stated so far.
Your liberal groups will not let white couples adopt black babies, they
have the baby wait with a state agency until when and if they find a
black couple. And that is a big if. They prefer the child stay with a
state agency rather than go to a couples home who happen to be white but
would give the child a home and love. There are many white couples that
want a child of any gender or color but its just so conveniant for you
to overlook that. Blame your damned liberal government groups and others
such as the NAACP, don't just outright make up a lie.
Jody English
I also thought Laurie sounded rather selfish in her posts but held back
judgement being as that I don't know her. But she did make it seem like
it was all about her.
Lukin13
SO THEY HAD TO GO TO CHINA TO ADOPT A KID. now what is that noise....instead of
aborting all of these babies....put them up for adoption...sure there is
absolutely wrong with adopting a chinese baby...but my aunt and uncle are white
and they wanted to have a white baby....I am possibly the least prejudiced
person in the whole world and I see nothing wrong with that....My uncle makes
big bucks and neither of them have a police record....they would make great
parents so that couldn't be a reason...there just aren't any to be adopted...
SO EVEN IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT ABORTION IS WRONG....HAVE THE BABY AND PUT IT
UP FOR ADOPTION....YOUR CHILD WILL GO ON TO LIVE A GREAT LIFE....or just go
ahead and keep killing them... or just say that you think it is okay because ed
does... I think ed would respect anyones opinion as long as it comes from the
heart...
-Dan(wow)
TFC ConcertContest: www.angelfire.com/il/lukin13
JettKarma
>I swear if I didn't know better, from reading all these posts, I would
>think a woman becomes pregnant through no actions of her own. Like she
>wakes up one day and BAM!! she's pregnant. If that was the case, your
>arguements might have merit. But there is a choice involved before
>abortion. When a woman decides to have sex, she has CHOSEN that having
>sex is more important to her than the possibility of becoming pregnant.
>What happens to a woman anyway if she decides that under no
>circumstances does she want to be pregnant, so she doesn't have sex?
>Does she starve? Does she become sick? Does she shrivel up and stop
>living? No, she just avoids having to get an abortion. But I see in this
>society that's too much to ask from a woman. We get angry at men for
>running from pregnancy but not at women. Doesn't that seem more than a
>little hypocritical?
**************************************************
We get so angry at men for running from a pregnancy that sometimes we
frown at them. Sometimes, men who run from a pregnancy have to pay a
few bucks to support the child. In the meantime, most of these men
who run from pregnancies are sleeping in, running around with the
boys, dating women, advancing in their jobs, etc., etc. The vast
majority of children brought up by single parents in this country are
brought up by women--women who put their lives on the line, women who
are awakened at all hours of the day and night, women who are not seen
as dependable employees because they're always having to run off to
take care of that sick baby, etc., women who are stuck in pink collar
ghettos and under glass ceilings because they "responsibly" had some
man's child. No, it's not too much to ask of women; we ask the very
same of men. Yeah, right.
Men who do not want to be fathers buy their way out of responsibility,
whenever they don't just up and leave, period. I once read a truly
disgusting statistic on deadbeat parents....I don't recall what it was
right off hand; but, it was staggering. For every deadbeat mom that
exists, there are something like 400,000 deadbeat dads.
I think it is too much to ask a woman to give up everything up to and
including her life in comparison to asking a man to give up a few
dollars from his paycheck...when you can find him.
--Jett
JettKarma
>Group: alt.music.pearl-jam Date: Thu, Jun 3, 1999, 7:16am (EDT+4) From:
>jewishpun...@my-deja.com Re: Gary Cherone is a loser.
>
><<I agree. GC is a stupid jerk!>>Did you meet him, if not then you can't
>say that!!!!
>
><< In addition to being TALENTLESS and in a HORRIBLE SEXIST DINOSAUR
>BAND. >>
>Not really a dinosaur band yet. Van Halen may have been sexist with Roth
>but Sammy and Gary are far from sexist.
>
><<Also, what about those stupid Van Halen songs about fucking?>>
>I would rather hear songs about good times and women than listening to
>bands like Pearl Jam. PJ and etc act miserable when they are really
>happy to take the money and have fame. People are sick of the faking
>that is why straight ahead rock bands are in the comeback. People want
>to see a show full of energy and action not bands staring at their
>shoes!!!!
>*********************************************
Well, the PJ show I saw here in '98 was full of energy and action.
Most people staring at shoes were the ones looking the shoes on
people's feet as they surfed nonstop overhead. I don't believe PJ
fake much; they're pretty honest. This summer I saw them four
times...and I saw four very different performances--everything from
Pete Townshend jumps and bashing an escape hatch in the stage floor to
a very low-key performance with what seemed like accompanying
pronounced frustration. Each show was different and seemed to reflect
a real sincerity about how the band felt that night, which I'm sure
was based on many different things including how tired they were,
what kind of crowd they had, what kinds of equipment problems they may
have had, etc. You can accuse PJ of a lot of things, but whole cloth
faking it is not really one of them. A band that comes out and is
consistently chipper and upbeat no matter what is the one that's
faking it.
><< They even have an album called F.U.C.K., so if they advocate sex so
>often and made a lot of money (say millions and millions), >>
>It was called For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge to piss off the censorship
>action taking place at that time. Van Halen may advocate sex but PJ
>advocate blowing the kids away in school. Which is better to advocate?
>***************************************************
You are either very ignorant or will stoop to any level to make a
point. PJ has never advocated any such thing as blowing kids away in
school, and you are making it up as you go along. And, I can't help
but think you know it.
>
><<By the way, it occurs to me that since GC is considered talentless by
>a lot of VH fans that he is probably doing this for publicity. Think
>about it. Controversy sells records, >>
>they are not on tour they don't have a new release out so why would he
>want publicity???
>
><<and GC is not well liked, nor is he known for being particularly
>bright.>>
>Actually Gary is well known for being bright!!!!
> *********************************************
It must be for things other than his letter to Ed because that made
him sound pretty stupid.
><<In addition, when he was with Extreme (yuck!) did he not partake of
>groupies??? I think not.>>
>Eddie Vedder screws groupies too, so what is the difference???
>***************************************************
I don't know whether, in fact, Ed has screwed "groupies." I do know
that he has said things like, "I can't stand the little girls. I just
can't deal with that. They see you on TV and they think weird things,
and they just want to...to touch you or something really gross. I've
had a girlfriend for eight years (now his wife) and so I'm totally
focused. I have no interest in any of them." This doesn't *sound*
like a man with a keen interest in casual sex with who knows who. It
seems to me the difference between the two Gary and Ed is something
like the difference between Death Valley and a tropical island.
><< What about Eddie VH, and his on-going affair with a woman other than
>his wife???? Hmmmmm??? Wonder if SHE got pregnant,>>
>Who can you prove this????
>
><< I know she doesn't have a kid from him, >>
>Wolfgang Eddie and Val do have a kid. If any of the guys in PJ are
>married you think that they don't cheat, ha!!!!!!
******************************************************
And even if Eddie and/or Jack *were* to cheat on their wives, at least
they wouldn't be handing out hypocritical, pro-life lines as they
engage in behavior which could very well result in an unwanted
pregnancy.
MAD
wrote:
>
>
>MAD wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 05 Jun 1999 19:04:02 GMT, sr...@mindspring.com (Shannon )
>> wrote:
>>
>> >TEng...@webtv.net (Jody English) wrote:
>> >
>> >>I swear if I didn't know better, from reading all these posts, I would
>> >>think a woman becomes pregnant through no actions of her own. Like she
>> >>wakes up one day and BAM!! she's pregnant. If that was the case, your
>> >>arguements might have merit. But there is a choice involved before
>> >>abortion. When a woman decides to have sex, she has CHOSEN that having
>> >>sex is more important to her than the possibility of becoming pregnant.
>> >>What happens to a woman anyway if she decides that under no
>> >>circumstances does she want to be pregnant, so she doesn't have sex?
>> >>Does she starve? Does she become sick? Does she shrivel up and stop
>> >>living? No, she just avoids having to get an abortion. But I see in this
>> >>society that's too much to ask from a woman. We get angry at men for
>> >>running from pregnancy but not at women. Doesn't that seem more than a
>> >>little hypocritical?
>> >
>> >
>> >So then you are for abortion if the woman was not in a position to
>> >make the choice to have sex? Raped, a victim of incest (which is
>> >really just rape anyway, I guess), or if the birth control fails, etc.
>> >
>> >
>> >It's not always the woman's choice to have sex, and it's not always
>> >due to irresponsible behavior.
>>
>> My stance is pro life except for situations in which their was a rape
>> or incest or it may seriously endanger a womans life to have the baby.
>
>That's fairly hypocritical. Either you believe the fetus is a person or not.
>It is innocent of the rape. So therefore, you must be saying that if *you*
>think there is a good reason, it's okay to kill a fetus. But a woman faced
>with a life of poverty, that's *not* a good reason. What hypocrisy!
No it's not hypocritical it's realistic. Sometimes like is not just
black and white and their are always exceptions. The life of poverty
can all be avoided by putting the kid up for adoption. Your theory has
no value because of that.
>
>> One thing I would have a severe problem with is If I get a girl
>> pregnant in consentual sex and she chooses to have an abortion I have
>> no say in what happens with what is also my child.
>
>Then I suggest you take precautions if you don't want that to happen. Take
>some fucking responsibility. You can't get a woman pregnant accidentally, and
>then feel you can force her to have the baby! If you don't take
>responsibility for preventing an unwanted pregnancy, you have to face the
>consequences; that the woman may not choose to have your baby.
If two people have sex and precautions are taken which i do and the
woman gets pregnant I feel I should have a say in what happens to
something that is also mine. I am trying to take responsibility
instead of the easy way out like so many women today do with their
abortions. I'd rather take the child by myself than have the woman
kill it.
>
>>
>>
>> I think the best solution for women who are thinking of abortion that
>> haven't been raped or have any serious circumstances concerning their
>> pregnancy is adoption. How can anyone sit here and say it's better for
>> the kid to die rather than be put up for adoption?
>
>Because any woman who has ever given a child up for adoption has pain for the
>rest of her life. You cannot even begin to imagine how a woman bonds with her
>child during pregnancy. It is much more painful to never see that baby grow
>up, after having gone through with the pregnancy. Only a man can wish that
>kind of pain on a woman. Besides, only white, healthy babies are wanted.
>Mixed race and non-white, non-healthy babies get shuffled around the foster
>care system, and suffer greatly. So, do you think only white women who get
>knocked up by white men should be forced to have babies and give them up for
>adoption? Watch the movie, "The Handmaiden's Tale".
>
So it's ok to kill the kid just cause the woman doesn't get to know it
but it's so bad for the woman to let the kid have a chance and give it
to someone who may give it a good life. All your reasons for abortion
sound very selfish with no thoughts of what the man might have to say
or least of all the child you would be killing.
Shannon
>My stance is pro life except for situations in which their was a rape
>or incest or it may seriously endanger a womans life to have the baby.
Ok....so take it a step further. Does the woman have to prove she was
raped or a victim of incest? Doe she have to go to court, get a
conviction, etc, or do we just take her word for it? Do you see how
restrictions like that are just as good as outlawing it altogether? I
like how some poeple say, oh well if she is raped or was a victim of
incest then that's different, but at the same time women are made to
feel such shame about it that much of the time, these crimes aren't
even reported.
If people want women to have fewer abortions, push for sex education.
~*Freebird*~
>
> *Once again the notion that unwanted pregnancies are the domain of
> irresponsible women.
Most are.
> Bullshit. What about rape?
That's the minority of cases. The tense muscular condition of a woman during
rape is not conducive to pregnancy. Scientific evidence supports that it is
exceedingly difficult to be impregnanted by a rape. Raising the issue of
rape is used too often as a way of dodging the issue at hand, and that is
that women are free to abort simply for reasons of their own personal
convenience. This to me is wrong.
> What about a married
> couple whose condom breaks?
They took the chance, they should deal with it. If they don't want the kid,
put it up for adoption. Don't slaughter it.
> It's so easy to take that holier than thou
> attitude when you're discussing this issue when you're in no danger
> whatsoever of suffering the physical consequences of it yourself, is'nt
> it? "Woman" does not equal "Incubator".
Most pro-lifers don't have a problem with abortion when pregnancy actually
threatens the life of the mother. In such cases there is grounds for moral
justification.
Rob
~*Freebird*~
Jody English <TEng...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:8462-375...@newsd-242.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> Geez Laurie, I don't know where you get your ideas from. You talk all
> this lingo about the mans' responsibility, but you allow a woman to cop
> out with an abortion.
That's another issue that deeply troubles me. If the woman keeps the baby,
the man has legal responsibility to pay support because it is also "his
child." Yet the woman is free to MURDER the child without the man's consent.
The hypocrisy is sickening and unjustified.
Rob
Mike Bosmay
mstr...@earthlink.net (JettKarma) Re: Gary Cherone is a loser.
Group: alt.music.pearl-jam Date: Thu, Jun 3, 1999, 7:16am (EDT+4) From:
jewishpun...@my-deja.com Re: Gary Cherone is a loser.
<<Well, the PJ show I saw here in '98 was full of energy and action.
Most people staring at shoes were the ones looking the shoes on people's
feet as they surfed nonstop overhead. >>
When I mean energy and action I mean Kiss, poison classic Van Halen.
pearl jam's energy doesn't come close!!!!!
<<I don't believe PJ fake much; they're pretty honest.>>
They fake their image and attitude grunge was all fake!!!!
<< This summer I saw them four times...and I saw four very different
performances--everything from Pete Townshend jumps and bashing an escape
hatch in the stage floor to a very low-key performance with what seemed
like accompanying pronounced frustration. Each show was different and
seemed to reflect a real sincerity about how the band felt that night,
which I'm sure was based on many different things including how tired
they were,>>
If they were such good musicians they wouldn't get tired!!!
<< what kind of crowd they had, what kinds of equipment problems they
may have had, etc. You can accuse PJ of a lot of things, but whole cloth
faking it is not really one of them. A band that comes out and is
consistently chipper and upbeat no matter what is the one that's faking
it. >>
No when i listen to music I don't want to get depressed or more
depressed i want it upbeat to cheer me up and get me in a good mood that
is what music is all about.
<<You are either very ignorant or will stoop to any level to make a
point. PJ has never advocated any such thing as blowing kids away in
school, >>
Remember Jeremy whether or not they provoked it on purpose or not they
still planted that idea in kid's heads. In the 80's I didn't see this
happening!!!!
<<I don't know whether, in fact, Ed has screwed "groupies.>>
Sure he has every musicians does!!!!
<<" I do know that he has said things like, "I can't stand the little
girls. I just can't deal with that. They see you on TV and they think
weird things, and they just want to...to touch you or something really
gross. >>
That is the lies and faking I am talking about!!!! He has o screwed
groupies!!!
<<I've had a girlfriend for eight years (now his wife) and so I'm
totally focused. I have no interest in any of them." This doesn't
*sound* like a man with a keen interest in casual sex with who knows
who. >>
It is a lie do you beleive everything out of their muths? If you believe
everything that comes out of musicians mouth's I feel sorry for you!!!
I have to hand it to you, at least you handled this debate with maturity
and intelligence, something not seen very often on the internet.
Mike Bosmay
sr...@mindspring.com (Shannon) Re: Gary Cherone is a man with balls
<<Ok....so take it a step further. Does the woman have to prove she was
raped or a victim of incest? Doe she have to go to court, get a
conviction, etc, or do we just take her word for it?>>
<< Do you see how restrictions like that are just as good as outlawing
it altogether? I like how some poeple say, oh well if she is raped or
was a victim of incest then that's different, but at the same time women
are made to feel such shame about it that much of the time,>>
If they feel shame then maybe they shouldn't have screwed. Which shame
is worse your peers finding out you got knocked up or murdering a
baby???
Melora
Mike Bosmay wrote :
>>If they feel shame then maybe they shouldn't have screwed. Which shame
is worse your peers finding out you got knocked up or murdering a baby???<<
A guy who joked about child rape in the Nirvana newgroup is now
lecturing people on morality? What a joke?
Melora
Angel
If I recall correctly, the "joke" saw him raping AND murdering Frances
Bean. You're right, its ludicrous.
Laurie Hester
illustrate, because the explanations of my feelings may make you realize
that there is another side to this. It is one thing to say "It's painful
to give up a child for adoption, or give up college, career for a life of
poverty and single parenthood" and another to give you personal
reflections.
What is selfish is to assume that a woman's right to pursue life, liberty
and happiness is to be subjugated to a fetus, simply because your religious
beliefs deem it to be a person. Oh well, she's pregnant? No problem, just
let her sacrifice herself. Let's work together to make every biological
father fully responsible, and then we can reduce abortions. Agreed?
Laurie
Laurie Hester
MAD wrote:
> No it's not hypocritical it's realistic. Sometimes like is not just
> black and white and their are always exceptions. The life of poverty
> can all be avoided by putting the kid up for adoption. Your theory has
> no value because of that.
Adoption is not the "perfect solution" you think. Again, a man cannot understand
the bonding that happens during the 9 months of pregnancy. Having had 3 babies, I
*know* how one bonds. This is why, even though I had an abortion when younger, I
could *never* have one after having gone through a pregnancy. I do not regret the
choice I made then, but do not now feel abortion is right *for me*.
Anyway, my second baby was born with a heart problem and died at 9 days old. You
who have never had a child cannot imagine the pain I went through. How much I
loved that baby from before she was even born. I'm told that I am lucky, and was
able to get over the loss of this baby (after about 2 years, I was no longer
depressed, but even now after 18 years, the loss brings tears to my eyes) only
because I had closure. Every woman that I've seen or heard talking about their
decision to give the baby up for adoption, also feels the same pain at the loss
that I did. Only they have no closure. They know the baby is out there, don't
know if it is safe, being abused, or what. This is an incredible pain to have to
suffer, and why so many adoptions go wrong, as the mother cannot bear the loss of
her child, and wants to keep it. Adoption is not the answer. I'm trying to make
you understand the feelings that you so flippantly suggest are unimportant and
justify adoption as an alternative to abortion. Again, a man cannot understand the
depth of this bonding and the pain involved in adoption. So I am trying to explain
as best I can why it is callous to suggest adoption is the answer (even if there
were enough parents for non-white or non-healthy kids).
>
>
> >
> >> One thing I would have a severe problem with is If I get a girl
> >> pregnant in consentual sex and she chooses to have an abortion I have
> >> no say in what happens with what is also my child.
> >
> >Then I suggest you take precautions if you don't want that to happen. Take
> >some fucking responsibility. You can't get a woman pregnant accidentally, and
> >then feel you can force her to have the baby! If you don't take
> >responsibility for preventing an unwanted pregnancy, you have to face the
> >consequences; that the woman may not choose to have your baby.
>
> If two people have sex and precautions are taken which i do and the
> woman gets pregnant I feel I should have a say in what happens to
> something that is also mine. I am trying to take responsibility
> instead of the easy way out like so many women today do with their
> abortions. I'd rather take the child by myself than have the woman
> kill it.
>
I think that if you feel that way, and you get a woman pregnant, and she knows you
will take responsibility, she is unlikely to get an abortion. You're one of the
good guys who *does* take responsibility. I like that about you.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> I think the best solution for women who are thinking of abortion that
> >> haven't been raped or have any serious circumstances concerning their
> >> pregnancy is adoption. How can anyone sit here and say it's better for
> >> the kid to die rather than be put up for adoption?
> >
> >Because any woman who has ever given a child up for adoption has pain for the
> >rest of her life. You cannot even begin to imagine how a woman bonds with her
> >child during pregnancy. It is much more painful to never see that baby grow
> >up, after having gone through with the pregnancy. Only a man can wish that
> >kind of pain on a woman. Besides, only white, healthy babies are wanted.
> >Mixed race and non-white, non-healthy babies get shuffled around the foster
> >care system, and suffer greatly. So, do you think only white women who get
> >knocked up by white men should be forced to have babies and give them up for
> >adoption? Watch the movie, "The Handmaiden's Tale".
> >
>
> So it's ok to kill the kid just cause the woman doesn't get to know it
> but it's so bad for the woman to let the kid have a chance and give it
> to someone who may give it a good life. All your reasons for abortion
> sound very selfish with no thoughts of what the man might have to say
> or least of all the child you would be killing.
I hope that my previous posts have given you some idea of the intense feelings
involved. I have used my personal experiences to illustrate, because I thought it
would help you to understand how difficult a decision abortion is. I am all for
the father getting involved; like I say, 99% of abortions are because the man is
*not* involved. It's selfish to bring a child into this world when you are not
mentally or financially able to support it.
>
Laurie
Laurie Hester
~*Freebird*~ wrote:
> That's another issue that deeply troubles me. If the woman keeps the baby,
> the man has legal responsibility to pay support because it is also "his
> child." Yet the woman is free to MURDER the child without the man's consent.
> The hypocrisy is sickening and unjustified.
Rob, shouting the word "murder" in an abortion debate is only likely to
inflame. People do disagree about whether killing a fetus is murder. You have
to believe that a non-viable fetus has individual rights in order to call it
murder. That is another debate, a religious one about when life begins, and one
which no one is likely to agree on. So, let's just call it abortion, if you
want to debate the responsibility issue.
I agree that it is extremely unfair that a man doesn't have any say over whether
the woman chooses to abort his child. But it is the woman's body that is where
the fetus is growing, and her body which must support it for 9 months. And it
is her who will get arrested if she abandons the baby afterward, while the man
can walk away at any time. This is reality, and we can't change the biological
part. Fortunately, the situation where the woman wants an abortion and the man
is ready and willing to support it is rare. But even in those cases, you cannot
force a woman to have the man's baby. It is not a possession that she is
destroying. It is her body, and she is in control of it. When technology is
such that the woman's body is no longer needed to support a fetus, then men will
be able to take responsibility for it themselves. Until that day, sorry, a
woman controls her own body.
Let me give you an analogy, for all those men out there who have a hard time
understanding the concept of forcing an unwanted pregnancy on a woman. Let's
say that we decide that children are precious, and their right to life
superceeds that of any adult's right to personal liberty. So we say that an
adult only really needs one kidney and one lung, and so we need extra kidneys
and lungs for sick children. But we decide that only men who have acted
irresponsibly will have to sacrifice for the children's sake. So we say that
only men who have been caught speeding will be forced to give up a kidney or
lung. Of course, having only one kidney or lung will affect them the rest of
their life, although they can certainly live comfortably; they may have to give
up drinking and smoking so as not to damage their remaining organs. That's not
too much to ask of them to save a child's life, is it? And if they don't want
to be forced to donate their body in this way, they certainly have the CHOICE
*not* to speed.
Laurie
>
>
> Rob
Laurie Hester
Jody English wrote:
> Geez Laurie, I don't know where you get your ideas from. You talk all
> this lingo about the mans' responsibility, but you allow a woman to cop
> out with an abortion. Surely you can see the fucked reasoning there. But
> maybe not.
I'm saying that 99% of all abortions are chosen by the women because the
father (who is also responsible for the pregnancy) is either 1) long gone 2)
an abuser 3) incapable of or refusing to financially support the baby. So
how about if we start there to reduce the need for abortions? If we can
solve those 3 problems, there won't be a need for abortion. Isn't that what
we both want? What are your suggestions on making the man be more
responsible to reduce the need for abortion? Or do you not feel the man
*is* responsible?
> And then you go off about how noone wants black or hispanic babies, only
> white babies. This is the biggest load of shit you've stated so far.
> Your liberal groups will not let white couples adopt black babies, they
> have the baby wait with a state agency until when and if they find a
> black couple. And that is a big if. They prefer the child stay with a
> state agency rather than go to a couples home who happen to be white but
> would give the child a home and love. There are many white couples that
> want a child of any gender or color but its just so conveniant for you
> to overlook that. Blame your damned liberal government groups and others
> such as the NAACP, don't just outright make up a lie.
Well, I agree there are a few white parents willing to adopt black or
mixed race babies, and I don't agree with the policy that prevents that.
But these are exceptions. Most couples who want to adopt, want to adopt a
healthy, white infant. You have to admit that there *are* white children in
foster care. How did they get there? They were not infants when they were
available for adoption, or had handicaps or something. If I have time, I
will search for some statistics, but even if the unfortunate policy of
placing black babies with black parents were changed overnight, I doubt
there would be many lining up to adopt them.
Laurie
Angel
"~*Freebird*~" <free...@ovation.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > *Once again the notion that unwanted pregnancies are the domain of
> > irresponsible women.
>
> Most are.
LOfuckingL!! Last time I checked we don't get pregnant by ourselves.
Raising the issue of
> rape is used too often as a way of dodging the issue at hand, and that
is
> that women are free to abort simply for reasons of their own personal
> convenience. This to me is wrong.
>
BINGO. "This to ME is wrong". I'ts YOUR opinion, NOT mine. Personally, I
don't believe an unwanted child is better off being born, I don't
believe that "life" begins at the point of conception, I don't believe a
woman should be forced into carrying a child she doesn't want,
regardless of her actions. Unlike you, I do not automatically assume my
opinions are "right"-but they are mine.
> > What about a married
> > couple whose condom breaks?
>
> They took the chance, they should deal with it. If they don't want the
kid,
> put it up for adoption. Don't slaughter it.
*In other words, SHE should deal with it, he doesn't have much to deal
with in this scenario.
>
> > It's so easy to take that holier than thou
> > attitude when you're discussing this issue when you're in no danger
> > whatsoever of suffering the physical consequences of it yourself,
is'nt
> > it? "Woman" does not equal "Incubator".
>
> Most pro-lifers don't have a problem with abortion when pregnancy
actually
> threatens the life of the mother. In such cases there is grounds for
moral
> justification.
>
> Rob
*That's not what I was referring to. I was referring to the physical,
psychological and emotional torture of carrying an unwanted life to
term, something you are in no danger of experiencing. And as a girl once
said to Vedder, "I'd appreciate you staying out of this until you've
grown a uterus".
Angel
>
> That's another issue that deeply troubles me. If the woman keeps the
baby,
> the man has legal responsibility to pay support because it is also
"his
> child." Yet the woman is free to MURDER the child without the man's
consent.
> The hypocrisy is sickening and unjustified.
>
> Rob
>
>
You're right, it's sooo unfair! Almost as unfair as say, the fact that
to create a life the ONLY thing a man has to do is have an orgasm in the
right place...But I digress. I present to you a hypothetical situation;
Your wife falls pregnant accidentally, she doesn't want the child, or
the pregnancy. Do you force her to carry the child? Do you really
believe that while it's growing INSIDE HER BODY that's it's as much your
concern as it is hers?? Can you please not react emotionally and
consider this for a while?
MattA75
>pearl jam's energy doesn't come close!!!!!
LMAO-about the only band that comes close to the intensity and energy of PJ's
show (and don't any of you flame me unless you've been to one of their shows)
is the Mighty Mighty Bosstones
>They fake their image and attitude grunge was all fake!!!!
>
wow Bosmay's back to being a troll, big surprise
>If they were such good musicians they wouldn't get tired!!!
what does being a good musician have to do with being tired? to me if you're
giving it your all for 2-2 1/2 hours every night with bright lights beating
down on you, you're gonna get fucking tired-this argument of yours makes no
sense!!!!
>No when i listen to music I don't want to get depressed or more
>depressed i want it upbeat to cheer me up and get me in a good mood that
>is what music is all about.
>
yeah so let's listen to cock rock bands like POISON-yeah WOO HOO-please,
speaking for this ng, PJ does more and cares more about their fans than ANY
80's band EVER did, and the fans return that love
>Remember Jeremy whether or not they provoked it on purpose or not they
>still planted that idea in kid's heads. In the 80's I didn't see this
>happening!!!!
>
I STRONLY suggest you read the Manson column in the new Rolling Stone-you are
seriously ignorant if you're gonna blame school shootings on ANY music etc
>Sure he has every musicians does!!!!
so now Bosmay knows what EVERY SINGLE MUSICIAN DOES!!!!
>That is the lies and faking I am talking about!!!! He has o screwed
>groupies!!!
and you would know this how???
>It is a lie do you beleive everything out of their muths? If you believe
>everything that comes out of musicians mouth's I feel sorry for you!!!
oh yes, he married Beth as part of a giant lie-I always thought people who
still listened to 80s music were dumb, but now I'm sure of it with statements
like this!
visit http://www.angelfire.com/ma/BestofYield98tapes/index.html for information
on Opening Band For The Sun, a Best of 98 compilation of the North American
Tour, with orders now being taken!!!!
~*Freebird*~
Laurie Hester <lhe...@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:375A491F...@clara.co.uk...
>
>
> ~*Freebird*~ wrote:
>
> > That's another issue that deeply troubles me. If the woman keeps the
baby,
> > the man has legal responsibility to pay support because it is also "his
> > child." Yet the woman is free to MURDER the child without the man's
consent.
> > The hypocrisy is sickening and unjustified.
>
> inflame. People do disagree about whether killing a fetus is murder.
How can anyone disagree? A baby in the ninth month is as developed a person
as a baby that has been born. The only difference is that it has not come
out yet. However, abortions are still performed in the 9th month.
>You have
> to believe that a non-viable fetus has individual rights in order to call
it
> murder.
It does have rights. It was given life by whatever god you choose to believe
in. The miracle of life is not something that mankind should ever attempt to
control or manipulate. The child is not "yours" just because it is growing
inside you. It is a unique life.
> That is another debate, a religious one about when life begins, and one
> which no one is likely to agree on.
It's a scientific debate moreso than a religious one. Science tells us that
a child in the womb feels things both physically and emotionally. How can
there be a debate over whether it is a person or not?
> Let me give you an analogy, for all those men out there who have a hard
time
> understanding the concept of forcing an unwanted pregnancy on a woman.
Let's
> say that we decide that children are precious, and their right to life
> superceeds that of any adult's right to personal liberty. So we say that
an
> adult only really needs one kidney and one lung, and so we need extra
kidneys
> and lungs for sick children. But we decide that only men who have acted
> irresponsibly will have to sacrifice for the children's sake. So we say
that
> only men who have been caught speeding will be forced to give up a kidney
or
> lung. Of course, having only one kidney or lung will affect them the rest
of
> their life, although they can certainly live comfortably; they may have to
give
> up drinking and smoking so as not to damage their remaining organs.
That's not
> too much to ask of them to save a child's life, is it? And if they don't
want
> to be forced to donate their body in this way, they certainly have the
CHOICE
> *not* to speed.
What man do you know who wouldn't give up his organs to save his OWN child?
Rob
~*Freebird*~
Angel <sugar_c...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7jdmqj$ssq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>
> >
> > That's another issue that deeply troubles me. If the woman keeps the
> baby,
> > the man has legal responsibility to pay support because it is also
> "his
> > child." Yet the woman is free to MURDER the child without the man's
> consent.
> > The hypocrisy is sickening and unjustified.
> >
> >
> >
>
> You're right, it's sooo unfair! Almost as unfair as say, the fact that
> to create a life the ONLY thing a man has to do is have an orgasm in the
> right place...But I digress. I present to you a hypothetical situation;
> Your wife falls pregnant accidentally, she doesn't want the child, or
> the pregnancy. Do you force her to carry the child?
How can I force her when the law permits abortion?
> Do you really
> believe that while it's growing INSIDE HER BODY that's it's as much your
> concern as it is hers??
Yes, I do believe that. In fact, if she wants to kill the child and I want
it to be born so I can love it, then it is my concern even MORE than it is
hers. What would mean nothing to her would mean everything to me.
Rob
MAD
To respond to the other poster.
One thing needs to be said it's not our damn fault that women are the
ones that have the kids. And yes it is my concern if my child is going
to be killed just cause it's not convenient for the woman. I should
have a say in whether or not my child dies. If I have sex I know it's
a risk to take and that a child may be born out of having sex. Knowing
that I'm prepared to take 100% responsibility of a child born by
accident or one that was not intended. Unlike a lot of women here that
are pro choice I'm willing to sacrifice certain things to give my
child a fair chance because of my mistake. I would not sentence a
child to death just because I had sex and was not mature enough to
deal with the consequences that come with having sex. No matter what a
womans financial situation or place in life adoption is a better
solution than when it comes to unwanted mistake pregnancies.
and know I'm not religious I'm an atheist.
~Tink~
destroying.<<
Yea, it's a really small person. A person that given the chance may be
able to do great things. Don't give me any 'Is the world a place we
should bring children into?', 'It's her body' bullshit... The man has
every right to the child... It takes 2...
I don't have anything against any1 who supports or has had an
abortion... If a friend wanted one, I'd support their choice... It's
just people reasons for saying abortion is right piss me off! As do some
of the reasons why abortion is wrong. But... from the things that have
happened in my life... I'm against abortion... Maybe the fact that I
believe in a God has something to do with it. I know, man, the kool
thing today is not to believe in a God, but... I guess I'm not kool...
~Tink~
They made us with a tool
Then they taught us how to live
We met the candyman
He filles us with his contraband
Then they scared us all away--Jay Gordon
Jody English
Two quick things. YOU were the first to mention religion. I don't
remember anyone else doing so. I have my beliefsbut have not brought
them into this. And since so many pro choicers are going to the extreme
mentioning rape and incest and defects of the child (like these
constitute the majority of abortions) I will go a little further. Why
should a man not be able to CHOOSE if he wants to supprt and raise a
child. Because you deem he should be responsible. Are you not trying to
force your morality on this issue?? What if I want the child given up
for adoption? Where are my CHOICES here Laurie?? A mans choices do not
seem to matter to you I guess because a woman has to go through the
horrible tragic devastating effects of birth.
I realise some of that was extreme but choicers are constantly going to
the extreme talking about rape, incest and birth defects, as if these
things happen half the time.
Jody English
Not trying to change the discussion here but you mentioned to someone to
read an article by Marilyn Manson in Rolling Stone. Not to insult you,
but why would anyone with half a brain care what Marily Manson has to
say. It is so obvious his whole persona and image is a money making
industry. At least Alice Cooper admitted his thing was all for show.
This guy says this who he really is and kids believe it!! LOL! I admit I
haven't been to one of his shows so maybe someone can correct me if I'm
wrong. He has kids chant "I Hate Love I Love Hate."
He does someting like shoot the finger and the sky towards God and
encourages the audience to do the same.
He does something blasphemous with the bble I can't recall right now.
Is thisreally someone I could take seriously wand listen to what he has
to say? No. I hate to blame music for societal problems, but these kids
take this shit seriously. Kids who were into Kiss and Alice Cooper
thought it was all fun and games and "cool." It's very different with
Manson.
Laurie Hester
~*Freebird*~ wrote:
> It does have rights. It was given life by whatever god you choose to believe
> in. The miracle of life is not something that mankind should ever attempt to
> control or manipulate. The child is not "yours" just because it is growing
> inside you. It is a unique life.
Unless it can live outside it's mother's body, it is certainly *not* a unique
life. If the mother dies, it dies too. But that's what you believe, and this
is what I believe. Neither one of us is right or wrong; that's the key point.
You can choose, based on your conscience, *not* to have an abortion. Why do you
insist on pushing your beliefs on others? I simply can't understand this.
>
>
> > That is another debate, a religious one about when life begins, and one
> > which no one is likely to agree on.
>
> It's a scientific debate moreso than a religious one. Science tells us that
> a child in the womb feels things both physically and emotionally. How can
> there be a debate over whether it is a person or not?
The debate is whether a fetus has rights that supercede that of the mother.
Many people think differently than you. Accept it.
Every one of the million or so deadbeat dads in this country, who won't even
financially support their children.
>
>
> Rob
Laurie Hester
~Tink~ wrote:
> Don't give me any 'It's her body' bullshit... The man has
> every right to the child... It takes 2...
The man has every right to the child *after* it is viable. Until the man
can turn a fetus into a baby, it *is* her body.
>
>
> I don't have anything against any1 who supports or has had an
> abortion... If a friend wanted one, I'd support their choice... It's
> just people reasons for saying abortion is right piss me off! As do some
> of the reasons why abortion is wrong. But... from the things that have
> happened in my life... I'm against abortion...
Perfect! Don't have one. Just don't try to tell other people, women who
are faced with this decision, that your opinion is the right one. It is the
right decision for you, and I support you in your right to choose no
abortion for yourself.
Laurie Hester
Jody English wrote:
> Laurie
> Two quick things. YOU were the first to mention religion. I don't
> remember anyone else doing so. I have my beliefsbut have not brought
> them into this.
I just mentioned that because we were going to that special place where the
argument was about to turn into one about *when* a life begins, which is a
religious issue. That was in response to your calling abortion "murder".
> And since so many pro choicers are going to the extreme
> mentioning rape and incest and defects of the child (like these
> constitute the majority of abortions) I will go a little further. Why
> should a man not be able to CHOOSE if he wants to supprt and raise a
> child. Because you deem he should be responsible.
He can choose that, for a child of his who can live outside the womb.
While it's in there, biology dictates that he doesn't really have a say in
the matter, sorry.
> Are you not trying to
> force your morality on this issue??
I don't know what you mean. Unless you're prepared to say that a man has
control over what a woman does with her body, it's just a fact that until
that fetus can live outside her womb, he doesn't have a say.
> What if I want the child given up
> for adoption? Where are my CHOICES here Laurie??
Your choice is to have sex with someone who will react the same way as you
would like her to if faced with an accidental pregnancy, or to *not* have
sex with her if she would abort. Because you are not the one who is
pregnant, you do not get to make that choice. Sorry, that's just the way
it is. Make sure your woman feels the same way, or don't take the chance.
> A mans choices do not
> seem to matter to you I guess because a woman has to go through the
> horrible tragic devastating effects of birth.
A man is not pregnant; he doesn't have a choice to make. If you can take
the fetus out of her body and nurture it yourself, then you will have the
choice to make. Until then, sorry.
> I realise some of that was extreme but choicers are constantly going to
> the extreme talking about rape, incest and birth defects, as if these
> things happen half the time.
I think people bring up these situations in response to people saying
that abortion is the result of irresponsibility. Between the above
situations and birth control failure, you've covered 90% of accidental
pregnancies. Sure there are some irresponsible people. And thank god,
they didn't choose to be parents!
Laurie
~Tink~
her... never told her what to do... Fuck... I can't saying thing these
days without getting someone pissed!
~tink~
erst wenn die Wolken schlafengehn
kann man uns am Himmel sehn
wir haben Angst und sind allein
Gott weiss ich will kein Engel sein--Rammstein(I like german)
Mike Bosmay
sugar_c...@my-deja.com (Angel) Re: Gary Cherone is a man with balls
"Melora" <mel...@moscow.com> wrote:
Mike Bosmay wrote :
If they feel shame then maybe they shouldn't have screwed. Which shame
is worse your peers finding out you got knocked up or murdering a
baby???<<
A guy who joked about child rape in the Nirvana newgroup is now
lecturing people on morality? What a joke?
Melora
If I recall correctly, the "joke" saw him raping AND murdering Frances
Bean. You're right, its ludicrous.
ME, WHICH HE CLAIMS IS ANTI-RAPE WHICH IS STILL EASY FOR SOMEONE TO
CHANGE THAT MEANING AROUND. WHAT COMES AROUND GOES AROUND, HE SHOULD
HAVE HAD MORE SENSE THEN TO WRITE THAT SONG. THERE HAS BEEN A FEW PEOPLE
WHO HAVE RAPED BECAUSE OF THAT SONG!!!!
Mike Bosmay
mat...@aol.comhatespam (MattA75) Re: Gary Cherone is a loser.
<<LMAO-about the only band that comes close to the intensity and energy
of PJ's show (and don't any of you flame me unless you've been to one of
their shows) is the Mighty Mighty Bosstones >>
I HAVE SEEN PEARL JAM TWICE ONCE IN 1992 AND AGAIN IN 1998, IT IS WEAK
COMPARED TO THESE BANDS, DID YOU SEE THE POISON REUNION YET, IT WAS
FILLED AND THE ENERGY NEVER STOPPED.
<<what does being a good musician have to do with being tired? to me if
you're giving it your all for 2-2 1/2 hours every night with bright
lights beating down on you, you're gonna get fucking tired-this argument
of yours makes no sense!!!!>>
AGAIN POISON AND KISS'S HAVE BRIGHTER LIGHTS, FIEWORKS AND SOMETHING
GOING ON AT ALL TIMES!!!
<<yeah so let's listen to cock rock bands like POISON-yeah WOO
HOO-please, speaking for this ng, PJ does more and cares more about
their fans than ANY 80's band EVER did, and the fans return that love>>
I NEVER SEEN PEARL JAM THROWING OUT BACKSTAGE PASSES OR DOING MEET AND
GREETS EVERY NIGHT!!!! I HAVE SEEN POISON DO IT LAST WEEK!!!!
<<I STRONLY suggest you read the Manson column in the new Rolling
Stone-you are seriously ignorant if you're gonna blame school shootings
on ANY music etc >>
MUSIC PLAYS A PART IN IT AS DO PARENTS, PEERS AND SCHOOL. 4 AGENTS OF
SOCIALIZATION!!!!!!!
<<oh yes, he married Beth as part of a giant lie->>
HE PROBABLY LOVES HER BUT HE CHEATS AS WELL!!!!!
<<I always thought people who still listened to 80s music were dumb, but
now I'm sure of it with statements like this! >>
WELL NOW THAT THE 90'S ARE OVER PEOPLE WILL FEEL THE SAME ABOUT YOU KNOW
THAT PEARL JAM ARE WHERE POISON WERE IN 1992!!!!!!!!
JettKarma
>
>>
>> *Once again the notion that unwanted pregnancies are the domain of
>> irresponsible women.
>
>Most are.
>
>> Bullshit. What about rape?
>
>That's the minority of cases. The tense muscular condition of a woman during
>rape is not conducive to pregnancy. Scientific evidence supports that it is
>exceedingly difficult to be impregnanted by a rape. Raising the issue of
>rape is used too often as a way of dodging the issue at hand, and that is
>that women are free to abort simply for reasons of their own personal
>convenience. This to me is wrong.
>
>
>> What about a married
>> couple whose condom breaks?
>
>They took the chance, they should deal with it. If they don't want the kid,
>put it up for adoption. Don't slaughter it.
>
>> It's so easy to take that holier than thou
>> attitude when you're discussing this issue when you're in no danger
>> whatsoever of suffering the physical consequences of it yourself, is'nt
>> it? "Woman" does not equal "Incubator".
>
>Most pro-lifers don't have a problem with abortion when pregnancy actually
>threatens the life of the mother. In such cases there is grounds for moral
>justification.
>
>Rob
>***************************************************
Tell me that these preceding ideas are a joke, Rob. Unwanted
pregnancies are mostly the result of irresponsible women??? Unwanted
pregnancies are at least equally the result of irresponsible men, when
irresponsibility is cause.
What scientific study has ever shown the tense muscular conditions of
women during rape make pregnancy highly unlikely?? Point me
somewhere...to a respected text printed after 1900, I mean. I would
venture to guess that most acts of rape do not result in
pregnancy...that has nothing to do with muscular conditions in women,
but rather has everything to do with the fact that women are only
fertile for a limited number of hours each month.
--Jett
JettKarma
>Group: alt.music.pearl-jam Date: Sun, Jun 6, 1999, 2:43am (EDT+4) From:
>mstr...@earthlink.net (JettKarma) Re: Gary Cherone is a loser.
>Citize...@webtv.net (Mike Bosmay) did proclaim:
>Group: alt.music.pearl-jam Date: Thu, Jun 3, 1999, 7:16am (EDT+4) From:
>jewishpun...@my-deja.com Re: Gary Cherone is a loser.
>
><<Well, the PJ show I saw here in '98 was full of energy and action.
>Most people staring at shoes were the ones looking the shoes on people's
>feet as they surfed nonstop overhead. >>
>When I mean energy and action I mean Kiss, poison classic Van Halen.
>pearl jam's energy doesn't come close!!!!!
>
><<I don't believe PJ fake much; they're pretty honest.>>
>They fake their image and attitude grunge was all fake!!!!
>
><< This summer I saw them four times...and I saw four very different
>performances--everything from Pete Townshend jumps and bashing an escape
>hatch in the stage floor to a very low-key performance with what seemed
>like accompanying pronounced frustration. Each show was different and
>seemed to reflect a real sincerity about how the band felt that night,
>which I'm sure was based on many different things including how tired
>they were,>>
>If they were such good musicians they wouldn't get tired!!!
>
><< what kind of crowd they had, what kinds of equipment problems they
>may have had, etc. You can accuse PJ of a lot of things, but whole cloth
>faking it is not really one of them. A band that comes out and is
>consistently chipper and upbeat no matter what is the one that's faking
>it. >>
>No when i listen to music I don't want to get depressed or more
>depressed i want it upbeat to cheer me up and get me in a good mood that
>is what music is all about.
>
><<You are either very ignorant or will stoop to any level to make a
>point. PJ has never advocated any such thing as blowing kids away in
>school, >>
>Remember Jeremy whether or not they provoked it on purpose or not they
>still planted that idea in kid's heads. In the 80's I didn't see this
>happening!!!!
>
><<I don't know whether, in fact, Ed has screwed "groupies.>>
>Sure he has every musicians does!!!!
>
><<" I do know that he has said things like, "I can't stand the little
>girls. I just can't deal with that. They see you on TV and they think
>weird things, and they just want to...to touch you or something really
>gross. >>
>That is the lies and faking I am talking about!!!! He has o screwed
>groupies!!!
>***********************************************
Mike, how could you possibly know this for a fact? There is only one
way. You are a groupie, and Eddie screwed you. Logically, speaking
this is the only way you could really know. My maturity level is
*not* slipping. ;)
><<I've had a girlfriend for eight years (now his wife) and so I'm
>totally focused. I have no interest in any of them." This doesn't
>*sound* like a man with a keen interest in casual sex with who knows
>who. >>
>It is a lie do you beleive everything out of their muths? If you believe
>everything that comes out of musicians mouth's I feel sorry for you!!!
>**************************************************
I am married to a man who used to be a musician (he still is, just not
professionally), who in spite of whatever faults he's been prone to
(such as having numerous affairs with pretty Fenders and attractive
Marshalls and the like--even after we were married!! Oh, woe!! <g>),
is one of the most honest human beings anyone could hope to know.
"Musician" is not a synonym for "lazy, dishonest, drug-addicted sex
fiend." You can't believe every stereotype you trip across, either.
>I have to hand it to you, at least you handled this debate with maturity
>and intelligence, something not seen very often on the internet.
**************************************************************
Thank you. It's very gentlemanly of you to say so. :))
JettKarma
>
>
>MAD wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 05 Jun 1999 19:04:02 GMT, sr...@mindspring.com (Shannon )
>> wrote:
>>
>> >TEng...@webtv.net (Jody English) wrote:
>> >
>> >>I swear if I didn't know better, from reading all these posts, I would
>> >>think a woman becomes pregnant through no actions of her own. Like she
>> >>wakes up one day and BAM!! she's pregnant. If that was the case, your
>> >>arguements might have merit. But there is a choice involved before
>> >>abortion. When a woman decides to have sex, she has CHOSEN that having
>> >>sex is more important to her than the possibility of becoming pregnant.
>> >>What happens to a woman anyway if she decides that under no
>> >>circumstances does she want to be pregnant, so she doesn't have sex?
>> >>Does she starve? Does she become sick? Does she shrivel up and stop
>> >>living? No, she just avoids having to get an abortion. But I see in this
>> >>society that's too much to ask from a woman. We get angry at men for
>> >>running from pregnancy but not at women. Doesn't that seem more than a
>> >>little hypocritical?
>> >
>> >
>> >So then you are for abortion if the woman was not in a position to
>> >make the choice to have sex? Raped, a victim of incest (which is
>> >really just rape anyway, I guess), or if the birth control fails, etc.
>> >
>> >
>> >It's not always the woman's choice to have sex, and it's not always
>> >due to irresponsible behavior.
>>
>> My stance is pro life except for situations in which their was a rape
>> or incest or it may seriously endanger a womans life to have the baby.
>
>That's fairly hypocritical. Either you believe the fetus is a person or not.
>It is innocent of the rape. So therefore, you must be saying that if *you*
>think there is a good reason, it's okay to kill a fetus. But a woman faced
>with a life of poverty, that's *not* a good reason. What hypocrisy!
>
>> One thing I would have a severe problem with is If I get a girl
>> pregnant in consentual sex and she chooses to have an abortion I have
>> no say in what happens with what is also my child.
>
>Then I suggest you take precautions if you don't want that to happen. Take
>some fucking responsibility. You can't get a woman pregnant accidentally, and
>then feel you can force her to have the baby! If you don't take
>responsibility for preventing an unwanted pregnancy, you have to face the
>consequences; that the woman may not choose to have your baby.
>
>>**************************************************
A few months ago in New Mexico a man sued his pregnant girlfriend for
having gotten pregnant and now threatening him with child support
since she did not wish to have an abortion. He claimed that he had
made it extremely clear to her that he, under no circumstances wanted
children. She had agreed to take birth control pills (notice how *he*
didn't want kids, but *she* used the birth control method he wanted
her to...one that carries a risk of stroke, heart attack, liver
tumors, etc.) as a precaution against pregnancy. Well, lo and behold,
the pill failed and now she was going to have a baby. The girlfriend
agreed that the guy had said he under no circumstances wanted
children.
I forget what grounds he was using for the suit (they were
unusual--breach of contract?); but, anyway, the case went to court,
where it was promptly laughed *out* of court. The judge wisely said
that if the guy was dead set against having children it would have
behooved him to get a vasectomy. Child support payments began with
the birth of the child.
(Just a story out of the blue, and all I really wanted to say. <g>)
--Jett
>>
>> I think the best solution for women who are thinking of abortion that
>> haven't been raped or have any serious circumstances concerning their
>> pregnancy is adoption. How can anyone sit here and say it's better for
>> the kid to die rather than be put up for adoption?
>
>Because any woman who has ever given a child up for adoption has pain for the
>rest of her life. You cannot even begin to imagine how a woman bonds with her
>child during pregnancy. It is much more painful to never see that baby grow
>up, after having gone through with the pregnancy. Only a man can wish that
>kind of pain on a woman. Besides, only white, healthy babies are wanted.
>Mixed race and non-white, non-healthy babies get shuffled around the foster
>care system, and suffer greatly. So, do you think only white women who get
>knocked up by white men should be forced to have babies and give them up for
>adoption? Watch the movie, "The Handmaiden's Tale".
>
>>
>>
Melora
Mike Bosmay got hysterical and wrote :
>>I NEVER SAID I WOULD DO IT NOR DID I CODONE IT. KURT NOBRAINS WROTE RAPE
ME, WHICH HE CLAIMS IS ANTI-RAPE WHICH IS STILL EASY FOR SOMEONE TO
CHANGE THAT MEANING AROUND. WHAT COMES AROUND GOES AROUND, HE SHOULD
HAVE HAD MORE SENSE THEN TO WRITE THAT SONG. THERE HAS BEEN A FEW PEOPLE
WHO HAVE RAPED BECAUSE OF THAT SONG!!!!>>
How many people jumped to their deaths after listening to "Jump"?
Only someone equally moronic would take "Rape Me" to be pro-rape.
Just as only a sick fuck like you would make a joke about raping and
killing a child. Do you want me to find the post and put it here so
everyone can see how twisted it was? What goes around comes
around, people don't forget a sick psycho like you.
Melora
Adam
Melissa wrote in message
<24582-37...@newsd-173.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
From: TEng...@webtv.net (Jody English) Re: Gary Cherone is a man with
balls
<snip snip snippity snip>
um...can you tell me where you live, because i'd like to move to shiny
happy land also.
</snip>
ROTFLMAO...
great great great.
Sorry, just had to let you know.
Adam
Shannon
>
>Yes, I do believe that. In fact, if she wants to kill the child and I want
>it to be born so I can love it, then it is my concern even MORE than it is
>hers. What would mean nothing to her would mean everything to me.
>
>Rob
>
Well here it is folks. the heart of the matter. You assume that it
means nothing to a woman to abort a baby? If that's what you think
then there's really no use in trying to talk to you, because you don't
understand a damn thing.
Shannon
"There's always a bigger fish."
JettKarma
>
>Jody English <TEng...@webtv.net> wrote in message
>news:8462-375...@newsd-242.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
>> Geez Laurie, I don't know where you get your ideas from. You talk all
>> this lingo about the mans' responsibility, but you allow a woman to cop
>> out with an abortion.
>
>That's another issue that deeply troubles me. If the woman keeps the baby,
>the man has legal responsibility to pay support because it is also "his
>child." Yet the woman is free to MURDER the child without the man's consent.
>The hypocrisy is sickening and unjustified.
>
>Rob
>************************************************************
When a man takes a chance with his life with respect to bringing a
child into the world, a man's rights might mean something. As it is,
women bear all the physical risk.
My first pregnancy went swimmingly. I thought my second pregnancy was
going great...until I started hemorrhaging at 32 weeks into the
pregnancy. Off to the hospital I went, fully expecting that I might
end up with a 32-week-old preemie. Thankfully, the massive amounts of
injected Brethane they gave me did appear to work (the drug interferes
with the uterus' ability to contract effectively), although I had a
tendency feel my heart pound in my ears and to shake uncontrollably
after and could not sleep unless given good doses of Seconal due to
the amphetamine effect of the Brethane. The Brethane went on 24 hours
a day, seven days a week, in a series of injections. I was also given
painful hormone injections to help increase the level of surfactant in
my daughter's underdeveloped lungs to lessen her chances of
respiratory distress if she were not to make it to term (which she
didn't). My blood pressure was taken around the clock, often using an
automatic blood pressure cuff that turned my arm black and blue. The
phlebotomist came in each morning and took blood from me, filling
three to four little tubes. They gave me Heparin injections to keep
the blood from clotting around the permanently stationed IV in my
wrist.
I proceeded to spend 21 days flat on my back in the hospital with a
condition known as placenta previa. The placenta previa I had
completely covered the cervical opening (and that's why nature and my
smart baby had kept her in a transverse breech). I had absolutely
not one factor that would increase the risk of my having a placenta
previa...I don't smoke, I wasn't an older mother, I took absolutely no
drugs, I hadn't had multiple pregnancies, my diet was great, I visited
my doctor regularly, etc. Pregnancies do not get more by the book
than mine was.
Even 75 years ago, a placenta previa would have been an absolute death
sentence for my baby, and my own odds of survival would have been
50-50. The odds were much better in 1989, and my risk of death ran in
the neighborhood of 5%. My risk of hysterectomy, however, remained
quite high, and doctors said it was a good thing that this baby was
the last one I had planned to have, since I should "not be surprised
to wake up and find out" I had no longer had a uterus. That is, there
was a darn good chance I'd be sterile after surgery. That I would
have to have a c-section, and probably an emergency c-section, was a
given. Emergency c-sections carry their owns risks of death for
women, far higher than those of planned c-sections, which also involve
their own risk of death.
Well, one fine Sunday morning at 3:30 a.m., I started hemorrhaging
again; and, there was no stopping it this time, necessitating the
dreaded emergency c-section. I wasn't too afraid for myself, but I
was really afraid for my baby. She had been greatly stressed by the
whole thing and alternately had had her brain and body hit for weeks
with amphetamines and barbiturates--all in the name of keeping her
healthier than she would have been had she been born that prematurely.
*Would* she be healthy or would she be compromised? I lost more than
two liters of blood on the operating table; but, I was very lucky.
That's all I lost--and fortunately, insurance covered the $40,000 or
so the whole ordeal came to. I gained a scar that runs from my belly
button to my pubic bone that you can still easily see to this very
day.
I wanted this baby very much, and she was worth everything to me. All
of that and *everything* it might have taken. I eventually brought
home a beautiful, though badly jaundiced baby girl, who has since
grown up to become a very intelligent and strong willed youngster
(where could she get it from???) who will celebrate her 10th birthday
this December. (Endings don't get any nicer, let me tell you!! <g>)
My point in telling this story, however, is that having this baby
could have cost me my life. Having a baby could cost any woman her
life. No man has a right to a child that takes precedence to a
woman's right to her own life, nor even to her future right to bear
other children, should she so chose. That is why, wisely, a man has
no right to force a woman to carry his child. There is no hypocrisy
involved in denying men the right to dictate what happens as the
result of a pregnancy, either way.
The day a man assumes the same risks that a woman does in bearing
children is the day I might change my mind and agree that men have
rights equal to women's when it comes to pregnancies and the
outcome/Yield of those pregnancies.
I have read that sometime in the foreseeable future, there might be
the possibility of male-carried pregnancies. I hope to live to see
the day just so I can shake the two guys' hands who would consider
doing it. :))
--Jett
MattA75
>but why would anyone with half a brain care what Marily Manson has to
>say.
well, he's simply defending himself in the "editorial" I guess you would call
it-it deals with the Columbine shootings-I hate Manson's music as well,
however, he is very smart, like it or not
>It is so obvious his whole persona and image is a money making
>industry.
yep and he's making a lot of money doing it-I just said he wasn't dumb
>At least Alice Cooper admitted his thing was all for show.
Manson has as well on numerous occasions
>He does something blasphemous with the bble I can't recall right now
so what? it's called not everyone is cool with Christianity
>Is thisreally someone I could take seriously wand listen to what he has
>to say? No.
why? cause he looks different, is intelligent, and is making a hell of a lot of
money off of impressionable teens?
>I hate to blame music for societal problems, but these kids
>take this shit seriously.
I don't know one kid who likes Manson who doesn't know the whole thing is an
act
>Kids who were into Kiss and Alice Cooper
>thought it was all fun and games and "cool." It's very different with
>Manson.
not really
~*Freebird*~
Shannon <sr...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:375f2ff2...@news.mindspring.com...
If it meant something to her she wouldn't have it killed, its remains
discarded like trash.
Rob
JettKarma
>From: TEng...@webtv.net (Jody English) Re: Gary Cherone is a man with
>balls
>
><<<Melissa
>I'll try to make this short. First, let's take one of your last
>sentences.>>>
>
>ok, sure, but why are you totally disregarding the 57 sentences before
>that one? how do you respond to all the questions i asked?
>
> <<<You believe you should get to have sex without the consequence of
>having children.>>>
>
>yup, that's right. how convenient of you to take that line out of
>context and disregard my explanation of why i and thousands of others
>should be allowed to have sex. why aren't you responding to that?
>...oh, and while i'm thinking about it, and you did make a post to
>Laurie about refering to the resulting child as a punishment, keep in
>mind that you were the first to use the phrase "the consequence of a
>pregnancy, or the consequence of having sex"....it appears to me that
>you are the one that is presenting it as a punishment. usually the word
>"consequence" has a negative meaning...the consequences of doing
>drugs....the consequences of having unprotected sex...etc.....you don't
>often hear people say "the consequence of a good haircut or the
>consequence of saving money for retirement or the consequence of a
>healthy diet"...you are the one that has gven it negative meaning.
>
><<< This right here says more than I could ever say.>>>
>
>apparently so, you haven't said much in response to my post except
>taking one sentence and disregarding everything else i had to say.
>
><<< As for the rest of your post you took every extreme rare situation
>there is and stated as if it's the norm.>>>
>
>um...can you tell me where you live, because i'd like to move to shiny
>happy land also. if you think these situations are rare, then you and i
>are living in different worlds. there are many thousands of people in
>those situations. maybe you just choose not to see it or you really do
>live in shiny happy land. even if they were rare situations, which they
>are not...what about those people? what???
>
>
><<< When you and I know for a fact the norm is women having abortions
>out of conveniance.>>>
>
>"oops, i got knocked up, hope i can squeeze in that abortion before the
>movie starts. hey, lets go get some ice cream afterwards, ok? gosh,
>having these abortions sure is expensive and it sure does put a lot of
>stress on my body, but hey, it sure is alot more convenient than using
>all those birth control pills, norplants, depo provera shots, and
>condoms that Gary Cherone helped make sure were distributed free of
>charge to all who need them"....ummm...no....
>
>
><<< This fact obviously bothers you, but the question is why?>>>
>
>i don't think it is a fact and where on earth did you get the impression
>that it obviously bothers me?
>
><<< Why should you care if a woman has 10 or 20 abortions. Be consistent
>and tell me that it doesn't matter how many abortions a woman has as
>long as thats her choice.>>>
>
>it doesn't matter to me, i personally would think they are awfully
>stupid to continue to have abortions if they have been made aware of
>birth control options that are less stressful to the body and less
>expensive. if i knew of a woman like that, i would try to educate her
>about birth control and i would try to find someone to sponsor the cost
>of that birth control. maybe you or Gary can do that.
>
><<< Otherwise, if you believe any different, your beliefs and views
>begin to unravel.>>>
>
>no, my beliefs are still intact, did you think you were gonna "get me" ?
>it doesn't matter what the number of abortions is...i don't think
>abortion is wrong so why would the numbers bother me? i don't think they
>are killing one child or twenty....
>
><<<And how about an abortion at 5, 6, 7, months. Do have any problem
>with these?>>>
>
>well, i agree with Laurie (of course) as she expressed her opinion about
>viability in another post. i feel the same. if you want to get
>technical, ok, lets do a c-section at 6 weeks and a c-section at 7
>months and see what happens...would that make you happy. it wouldn't be
>an abortion in either situation....
>
><<< I suggest you be consistant and say no, >>>
>
>NO, and i suggest you don't tell me what to do, thank you.
>
><<<but for some reason when people can see arms and legs and body parts
>it disturbs them when they think of an abortion.>>>
>
>no, not if it's not viable.
>
><<< I wonder why?>>>
>
>cuz people think little things are cute. i saw i mini banana at the
>grocery store and i thought it was adorable. i'm much more mushy around
>kittens and puppies than cats and dogs. i think maybe it's part of our
>programming to be moved by little things so that when a woman or a tiger
>or a mongoose has a child, she will take care of it. just like giraffes
>were made with long necks to get to their food source and fish have
>gills to live underwater, we have this soft spot for babies to ensure
>the continuation of the species.
>
><<< After all, isn't a womans' right to choose the most important
>thing?>>>
>
>i could be just like you and take this sentence out of context, just
>like you did with me, but i wont.
>
>oh, and about the web sight you emailed me, i could go on for hours
>about that. i find it really interesting that the first article was
>against government control of pesticides. you send me a web page with an
>article against Gore and the governments involvement and you think the
>government should let the free market decide about the use of
>pesticides, you think it's wrong for the government to control pesticide
>use but it's ok for the govenment to control my body, whether or not i
>want to be a mother? just outrageous!! explain that one please!!! what
>got to me most and i'm sure you didn't know this, but one of the major
>reasons why i will never be able to carry throug with a pregnancy is
>because of pesticides and what they have done and continue to do to my
>body and my life.
>
>
>Melissa....who realized late last night that the only reason she was
>familiar with who Gary Cherone was was because of Mike Bosmay and
>Funkyboo....and that is my final thought for now
*******************************************
One...I loved your post.
Two...Going back to the subject of Gary Cherone and his championing
good things for women (and therefore, children), I couldn't help but
going back to these Rock for Life folks and just having a little look
around.
They are a division of (i.e., aka) The American Life League. Taking a
cruise by The American Life League, I found that they are a group that
bills themselves as the biggest pro-life education (others might say
"propaganda") group in the country. On their website, they clearly
state their mission and what clearly differentiates them from other
pro-life groups which, in part, reads:
"We are opposed to all abortion, contraceptive methods that cause
abortion and other threats to the human person and the family. This
total protection approach separates us from many of the other major
groups in the nation because we do not discriminate against any
innocent human being.
ALL will not support legislation that contains exceptions for rape,
incest, life of the mother, fetal deformity or other such language or
discrimination."
That is, what differentiates them from other pro-life groups is that
they are more extreme.
While ALL has no official stance on the death penalty, their site is
littered with the phrase, "innocent life," leading me to the
conclusion that if the rule of man says, "fry the sucker," they are
not against the sucker frying. <g> They go on about how no fetus has
ever been convicted of a criminal offense via a trial by jury (which,
I apparently, from their point of view, always constitutes justice).
:) I hope no one ever enacts a law against intrauterine thumb
sucking making it a capital offense for these fetuses sake.
Therefore, in Gary's allying himself with ALL and presumably sharing
their agenda, I wouldn't be particularly expecting Gary to help women
get access to the pill, Norplant, Depo Provera, or to IUDs. At least.
Yes, Gary is a friend to women and has a deep concern for them. :)
Also, speaking of friends to women...I have a little request. After
all of this Gary stuff, any little minor inconsistencies I might have
accused Ed of with respect to his feminism....they are laughably
inconsequential. If Ed remains as committed as he is to the
pro-choice cause, if I *ever* go on about how suspect his feminism
might be in some minor way...I ask you...out of mercy and in
friendship...smack me about the head with a rubber mackerel, please,
knocking some sense into me, okay? lol!!! THANK YOU!!
--Jett
Mike Bosmay
mel...@moscow.com (Melora) Re: Gary Cherone is a man with balls
<<Only someone equally moronic would take "Rape Me" to be pro-rape. Just
as only a sick fuck like you would make a joke about raping and killing
a child.>>
It wasn't a joke he wrote the song not me! I don't take back what I said
but I wish I wold have worded it better! He wrote a song knowing that
someone can easily switch that meaning around. I should have said HOW
WOULD KURT FEEL IF HIS DAUGHTER WAS RAPED? Do you like that wording
better? Now grow up and drop it, you are accomplishing nothing!!!
<<Do you want me to find the post and put it here so everyone can
see how twisted it was?>>
I said I wrote it but worded it wrong!!!!
<< What goes around comes around, people don't forget a sick psycho like
you.>>
If you think I am sick then fine I care less what people think of me let
alone a ittle teeny bopper like you!!!
oshuns
~*Freebird*~ <free...@ovation.net> wrote in article >
> If it meant something to her she wouldn't have it killed, its remains
> discarded like trash.
>
> Rob
>
>
>
no woman would ever consider a lost piece of herself trash. can you ever
understand that?
s
MAD
wrote:
Then she should have brought it to term and put it up for adoption.
oshuns
MAD <swa...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<375ce1a4...@news.mindspring.com>...
> On Mon, 07 Jun 1999 14:15:59 GMT, "oshuns" <osh...@info-internet.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >~*Freebird*~ <free...@ovation.net> wrote in article >
> >> If it meant something to her she wouldn't have it killed, its remains
> >> discarded like trash.
> >>
> >> Rob
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >no woman would ever consider a lost piece of herself trash. can you
ever
> >understand that?
> >
> >s
>
> Then she should have brought it to term and put it up for adoption.
>
>
that is judgement. it is her choice, her decision, and frankly none of
your business what a total stranger does with her life.
s
MAD
wrote:
>
>
>MAD <swa...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
><375ce1a4...@news.mindspring.com>...
>> On Mon, 07 Jun 1999 14:15:59 GMT, "oshuns" <osh...@info-internet.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >~*Freebird*~ <free...@ovation.net> wrote in article >
>> >> If it meant something to her she wouldn't have it killed, its remains
>> >> discarded like trash.
>> >>
>> >> Rob
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >no woman would ever consider a lost piece of herself trash. can you
>ever
>> >understand that?
>> >
>> >s
>>
>> Then she should have brought it to term and put it up for adoption.
>>
>>
>that is judgement. it is her choice, her decision, and frankly none of
>your business what a total stranger does with her life.
>s
Yea but the problem is if I were the father I would have the exact
same say in the matter as a complete stranger. In other words none.
oshuns
MAD <swa...@mindspring.com> wrote in article <> >> >~*Freebird*~
<free...@ovation.net> wrote in article >
> >> >> If it meant something to her she wouldn't have it killed, its
remains
> >> >> discarded like trash.
> >> >>
> >> >> Rob
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >no woman would ever consider a lost piece of herself trash. can you
> >ever
> >> >understand that?
> >> >
> >> >s
> >>
> >> Then she should have brought it to term and put it up for adoption.
> >>
> >>
> >that is judgement. it is her choice, her decision, and frankly none of
> >your business what a total stranger does with her life.
> >s
>
> Yea but the problem is if I were the father I would have the exact
> same say in the matter as a complete stranger. In other words none.
>
>
>
and if i had wheels i'd be a bicycle.
every situation is individual. your private affairs would be your own to
deal with. stick with them.
s
MAD
(Melissa) wrote:
>From: swa...@mindspring.com (MAD) Re: Gary Cherone is a man with balls
>
>Yea but the problem is if I were the father I would have the exact same
>say in the matter as a complete stranger. In other words none.
>------------------------------------------------------
>
>if you discuss in advance what the two of you will do if a pregnancy
>results, you won't have this problem. if it's that important to you that
>a woman not have an abortion, then make sure you're not having sex with
>someone who has decided they would have an abortion. if you're in a
>serious relationship, you need to decide if the relationship is worth
>keeping knowing that an abortion may occur. if your out for casual sex,
>you can just choose someone else to fuck. if you decide to fuck someone
>without discussing this in advance, then you've made a choice that
>abortion is a possibility. you do have a choice if you determine in
>advance what the outcome will be. if you decide to have sex with someone
>you know may decide to have an abortion, you made your choice.
>
>Melissa....who once had a bumper sticker that said "just say no to sex
>with prolifers"...it works for me, noone gets hurt.
Yea but I still have zero right as the father of the child. There
would be nothing I could do to stop a woman from killing my baby even
if it was discussed before that she would not get an abortion. If I'm
going to be responsible for a baby after it's born i should have a say
if it lives before it's born.
Melora
Mike Bosmay wrote
>Now grow up and drop it, you are accomplishing nothing!!!
I'm making you look bad. And your excuses are lame, the song
was not pro rape anymore than jump was pro-suicide.
I got the post from Deja News. Anyone who wants to see it can email
me. I'm not putting it here, it's too ugly.
Melora
Laurie Hester
MAD wrote:
Yea but the problem is if I were the father I would have the exact
same say in the matter as a complete stranger. In other words none.
Look, it takes a lot more to be a father than to fuck someone. A man is a sperm donor until that baby is born, and he *acts* as a father would. When he gets up at night to feed the baby, when he cares for it, when he financially supports it. Only then does he become a father. A sperm donor has no rights to a fetus.
Laurie
Laurie Hester
whining about how selfish a woman is to get an abortion, and how *they* should
have the right to force a woman to have their baby!
You are incredible, girl!
Laurie
Laurie Hester
ejaculates?
Laurie
Melissa wrote:
> From: free...@ovation.net (~*Freebird*~) Re: Gary Cherone is a loser.
>
> The tense muscular condition of a woman during rape is not conducive to
> pregnancy. Scientific evidence supports that it is exceedingly difficult
> to be impregnanted by a rape.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Jesse?....Jesse Helms?...what are you doing in here you old
> coot?....pretty clever of you to come here disguised as a Skynyrd fan,
> but you can't fool me you naughty boy!
>
> Melissa
Laurie Hester
Laurie
Laurie Hester
that infamous post saved somewhere?
Laurie
Mike Bosmay wrote:
> Group: alt.music.pearl-jam Date: Sun, Jun 6, 1999, 10:37am (EDT+4) From:
> sugar_c...@my-deja.com (Angel) Re: Gary Cherone is a man with balls
> In article <7jd81p$it9$1...@news.fsr.net>,
> "Melora" <mel...@moscow.com> wrote:
> Mike Bosmay wrote :
> If they feel shame then maybe they shouldn't have screwed. Which shame
> is worse your peers finding out you got knocked up or murdering a
> baby???<<
> A guy who joked about child rape in the Nirvana newgroup is now
> lecturing people on morality? What a joke?
> Melora
> If I recall correctly, the "joke" saw him raping AND murdering Frances
> Bean. You're right, its ludicrous.
>
> I NEVER SAID I WOULD DO IT NOR DID I CODONE IT. KURT NOBRAINS WROTE RAPE
> ME, WHICH HE CLAIMS IS ANTI-RAPE WHICH IS STILL EASY FOR SOMEONE TO
> CHANGE THAT MEANING AROUND. WHAT COMES AROUND GOES AROUND, HE SHOULD
> HAVE HAD MORE SENSE THEN TO WRITE THAT SONG. THERE HAS BEEN A FEW PEOPLE
> WHO HAVE RAPED BECAUSE OF THAT SONG!!!!
>
Laurie Hester
MAD wrote:
> Yea but I still have zero right as the father of the child. There
> would be nothing I could do to stop a woman from killing my baby even
> if it was discussed before that she would not get an abortion. If I'm
> going to be responsible for a baby after it's born i should have a say
> if it lives before it's born.
Wrong. The choice you have is not to have sex, if you are uncomfortable with
a woman making her own decisions. You have no say about whether she has an
abortion, because until/unless the baby is born, you are simply the sperm
donor. A fatherhood begins when/if the baby is born. And if you don't like
the fact that you will have to support it, then don't have sex. Period.
Life ain't fair, buddy. The woman takes all the risks, and it is her body.
Laurie
Laurie Hester
I'd just appreciate if Bosmay would take responsibility for that sick
post, and apologize. Then maybe people would have some respect for him.
Laurie
Mike Bosmay
mel...@moscow.com (Melora) Re: Gary Cherone is a man with balls
Mike Bosmay wrote
<<I'm making you look bad. And your excuses are lame, the song was not
pro rape anymore than jump was pro-suicide. >>
No you are not makig me look bad because
A. I don't care what people think.
B. I do that more than enough on my own.
You are making your obsessed self look PSYCHO with nothing better to do.
<<I got the post from Deja News. Anyone who wants to see it can email
me. I'm not putting it here, it's too ugly. >>
You are an OBSESSED PSYCHO!!!
Melora
~*Freebird*~
> >> If it meant something to her she wouldn't have it killed, its remains
> >> discarded like trash.
> >>
> >> Rob
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >no woman would ever consider a lost piece of herself trash. can you ever
> >understand that?
> >
> >s
Are you aware that the remains of aborted babies are put in hospital trash
receptacles?
Rob
Jacob Pemberton
~*Freebird*~ wrote:
>Are you aware that the remains of aborted babies are put in hospital trash
>receptacles?
Those aren't quite "trash receptacles." They're special containers for body
parts, etc that are disposed of after surgery. Besides, where else would they
put them? In grave? You can't have a funeral for something that was never
born. And besides, having a grave would make the abortion very public,
something that many women who having abortions wish to avoid.