The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the
people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not
by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).
Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the
constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back
to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not
by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).
Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the
constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back
to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.

===

I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states. Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were added later as amendments. Many however
have been enacted into law by congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the law of the land
and established a "legal precedent" which has traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and
seek to impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 4:54:21 PM UTC-4, waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not
by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).
Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the
constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back
to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.

===

I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states. Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were added later as amendments. Many however

have been enacted into law by congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the law of the land and
established a "legal precedent" which has traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to
impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work.

"They are in the minority however and seek to impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work."

Yet it happens repeatedly, and some of the most egregious examples have been in the last few years. And you should be careful about painting everyone with that one brush you've recently armed yourself with. For example, I'm labelled and are considered
a conservative. However, I believe that the government should not be in the marriage business, but rather just the civil union business, which after all is all they are concerned with anyway. If two "its" want to enter a civil contract, let them. But
staying true to separation of church and state, if a church refuses to perform a wedding ceremony or a bakery reuses to make a cake for them, so be it. Abortion should be legal through the 1st trimester for anyone. After that, only in rape and incest
cases or if medically necessary. After all, it is killing a human, and should have limits.

I think you'd be surprised at how large a majority would present itself to support these types of compromises and solutions if the rhetoric would subside and the discussions could take place. Unfortunately, the liberal MSM won't allow that, as they (and
others) make their money on keeping the pot stirred. Also, keep in mind that the so-called minority only appears that way because many, if not most, of the people in your perceived "minority" just don't go to the state capitol or SC steps to demonstrate.
The vast majority of them are too busy holding down jobs, raising families, and doing the work that runs this country. When they do speak up, they are either ignored or labelled by the media and elite liberals as racists, xenophobic, misogynistic,
etc. There's that pesky minority imposing their opinions and beliefs on us all again.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"345...@gmail.com" <3452471@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 4:54:21 PM UTC-4, waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com wrote:> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote: > > The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the > > people but the SCOTUS

only interprets the constitution and that is not > > by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about). > > Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the > > constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back > > to
the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.> === > > I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states. Some of those were written into the original
constitution and some were added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade ended up, and was
ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the law of the land and established a "legal precedent" which has traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very
sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work."They are in the minority however and seek to impose their beliefs on the
majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work."Yet it happens repeatedly, and some of the most egregious examples have been in the last few years. And you should be careful about painting everyone with that one brush you've
recently armed yourself with. For example, I'm labelled and are considered a conservative. However, I believe that the government should not be in the marriage business, but rather just the civil union business, which after all is all they are
concerned with anyway. If two "its" want to enter a civil contract, let them. But staying true to separation of church and state, if a church refuses to perform a wedding ceremony or a bakery reuses to make a cake for them, so be it. Abortion should
be legal through the 1st trimester for anyone. After that, only in rape and incest cases or if medically necessary. After all, it is killing a human, and should have limits.I think you'd be surprised at how large a majority would present itself to
support these types of compromises and solutions if the rhetoric would subside and the discussions could take place. Unfortunately, the liberal MSM won't allow that, as they (and others) make their money on keeping the pot stirred. Also, keep in mind
that the so-called minority only appears that way because many, if not most, of the people in your perceived "minority" just don't go to the state capitol or SC steps to demonstrate. The vast majority of them are too busy holding down jobs, raising
families, and doing the work that runs this country. When they do speak up, they are either ignored or labelled by the media and elite liberals as racists, xenophobic, misogynistic, etc. There's that pesky minority imposing their opinions and beliefs
on us all again.

I say put Roe and Wade on tbe back burner till after mid terms and
address the crisises created by the executive branch.

--


----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 8 May 2022 13:54:20 -0700 (PDT),
"waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the
people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not
by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).
Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the
constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back
to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.

===

I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states. Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were added later as amendments. Many

however have been enacted into law by congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the law of
the land and established a "legal precedent" which has traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority
however and seek to impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work.

The problem is the SCOTUS is not supposed to do what is popular, it is
supposed to follow the constitution. You have to go no farther than
National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43
(1977) to see that. Popular opinion is not supposed to enter into it
thus protests are inappropriate, (As much so as protesting the
certification of the election). I did see they are doing more crowd
control.


Scalia pointed out 20+ years ago, Roe was decided based, in part, on
a right that does not exist in the constitution. (privacy). I am
pretty much off the grid right now so I haven't had time to read the
leaked document, nor have I heard a lot about it other than the
hysteria but I wouldn't be surprised if that is not part of it.,

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 8 May 2022 21:54:28 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart
<me@yourservice.com> wrote:

"345...@gmail.com" <3452471@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 4:54:21 PM UTC-4, waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com wrote:> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote: > > The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the > > people but the SCOTUS

only interprets the constitution and that is not > > by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about). > > Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the > > constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back > > to
the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.> === > > I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states. Some of those were written into the original
constitution and some were added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade
ended

up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the law of the land and established a "legal precedent" which has traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their

cause and very sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work."They are in the minority however and seek to impose their
beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work."Yet it happens repeatedly, and some of the most egregious examples have been in the last few years. And you should be careful about painting everyone with that
one brush you've recently armed yourself with. For example, I'm labelled and are considered a conservative. However, I believe that the government should not be in the marriage business, but rather just the civil union business, which after
all

is all they are concerned with anyway. If two "its" want to enter a civil contract, let them. But staying true to separation of church and state, if a church refuses to perform a wedding ceremony or a bakery reuses to make a cake for them, so be it.

Abortion should be legal through the 1st trimester for anyone. After that, only in rape and incest cases or if medically necessary. After all, it is killing a human, and should have limits.I think you'd be surprised at how large a majority would
present itself to support these types of compromises and solutions if the rhetoric would subside and the discussions could take place. Unfortunately, the liberal MSM won't allow that, as they (and others) make their money on keeping the pot stirred.
Also, keep in mind that the so-called minority only appears that way because many, if not most, of the people in your perceived "minority" just don't go to the state capitol or SC steps to demonstrate. The vast majority of them are too busy

holding down jobs, raising families, and doing the work that runs this country. When they do speak up, they are either ignored or labelled by the media and elite liberals as racists, xenophobic, misogynistic, etc. There's that pesky minority imposing

their opinions and beliefs on us all again.

I say put Roe and Wade on tbe back burner till after mid terms and
address the crisises created by the executive branch.

Without Roe and Guns there are no hot button issues either party want
to talk about. That is why Trump has been made such a lightning rod.
They need a shiny object so we will ignore the financial problems and
the upcoming war. We hadn't screwed with the Japs as much as we have
the Russians when they bombed Pearl Harbor.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 9:54:30 PM UTC-4, Justan Ohlphart wrote:

"345...@gmail.com" <345...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 4:54:21 PM UTC-4, waynebatr...@hotmail.com wrote:> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote: > > The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the > > people but the SCOTUS only

interprets the constitution and that is not > > by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about). > > Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the > > constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back > > to the
states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.> === > > I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states. Some of those were written into the original
constitution and some were added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade ended up, and was
ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the law of the land and established a "legal precedent" which has traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very
sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work."They are in the minority however and seek to impose their beliefs on the
majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work."Yet it happens repeatedly, and some of the most egregious examples have been in the last few years. And you should be careful about painting everyone with that one brush you've
recently armed yourself with. For example, I'm labelled and are considered a conservative. However, I believe that the government should not be in the marriage business, but rather just the civil union business, which after all is all they are concerned
with anyway. If two "its" want to enter a civil contract, let them. But staying true to separation of church and state, if a church refuses to perform a wedding ceremony or a bakery reuses to make a cake for them, so be it. Abortion should be legal
through the 1st trimester for anyone. After that, only in rape and incest cases or if medically necessary. After all, it is killing a human, and should have limits.I think you'd be surprised at how large a majority would present itself to support these
types of compromises and solutions if the rhetoric would subside and the discussions could take place. Unfortunately, the liberal MSM won't allow that, as they (and others) make their money on keeping the pot stirred. Also, keep in mind that the so-
called minority only appears that way because many, if not most, of the people in your perceived "minority" just don't go to the state capitol or SC steps to demonstrate. The vast majority of them are too busy holding down jobs, raising families, and
doing the work that runs this country. When they do speak up, they are either ignored or labelled by the media and elite liberals as racists, xenophobic, misogynistic, etc. There's that pesky minority imposing their opinions and beliefs on us all again.

I say put Roe and Wade on tbe back burner till after mid terms and
address the crisises created by the executive branch.

The leaked document had no timeline for action that I'm aware of. The leak was done to accomplish exactly what's happening now... to give the Dems something to rally around and to take the focus off their complete failures during Biden's failed time in
office. Of course, the Dems are also now saying that the leak isn't even worth investigating, that nothing was wrong with what happened. They, and the media pushing this, have no shame.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

gfretwell@aol.com Wrote in message:r

On Sun, 8 May 2022 21:54:28 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart<me@yourservice.com> wrote:>"345...@gmail.com" <3452471@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 4:54:21 PM UTC-4, waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com wrote:> On Sunday, May 8, 2022

at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote: > > The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the > > people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not > > by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).

Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the > > constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back > > to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.> === > > I understand and appreciate your point but

it has been recognized over the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states. Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by congressional
or administrative action. People are free to contest those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wadeended>up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the law of the land and established a "legal precedent" which has
traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to impose their beliefs on the majority.
That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work."They are in the minority however and seek to impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work."Yet it happens repeatedly, and some of
the most egregious examples have been in the last few years. And you should be careful about painting everyone with that one brush you've recently armed yourself with. For example, I'm labelled and are considered a conservative. However, I believe
that the government should not be in the marriage business, but rather just the civil union business, which afterall>is all they are concerned with anyway. If two "its" want to enter a civil contract, let them. But staying true to separation of church
and state, if a church refuses to perform a wedding ceremony or a bakery reuses to make a cake for them, so be it. Abortion should be legal through the 1st trimester for anyone. After that, only in rape and incest cases or if medically necessary.
After all, it is killing a human, and should have limits.I think you'd be surprised at how large a majority would present itself to support these types of compromises and solutions if the rhetoric would subside and the discussions could take place.
Unfortunately, the liberal MSM won't allow that, as they (and others) make their money on keeping the pot stirred. Also, keep in mind that the so-called minority only appears that way because many, if not most, of the people in your perceived "minority"
just don't go to the state capitol or SC steps to demonstrate. The vast majority of them are too busy>holding down jobs, raising families, and doing the work that runs this country. When they do speak up, they are either ignored or labelled by the
media and elite liberals as racists, xenophobic, misogynistic, etc. There's that pesky minority imposing their opinions and beliefs on us all again.>>I say put Roe and Wade on tbe back burner till after mid terms and> address the crisises created by
the executive branch.> Without Roe and Guns there are no hot button issues either party wantto talk about. That is why Trump has been made such a lightning rod.They need a shiny object so we will ignore the financial problems andthe upcoming war. We hadn'
t screwed with the Japs as much as we havethe Russians when they bombed Pearl Harbor.

The Repubs better want to talk about Afghanastan, oil, the
southern border, economy, inflation, Ukraine, packing the S C,
first amendment, second amendment, states rights. These aren't
hot button issues. They're explosive. And Biden,et all, lit the
fuse on all of em. Congress needs to get back to work doing what
we pay them for.
--


----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com>
Wrote in message:r

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:> The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the > people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not > by mob rule. (no matter what the

decision is all about). > Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the > constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back > to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.===I understand and appreciate your
point but it has been recognized over the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states. Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by
congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the law of the land and established a "legal
precedent" which has traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to impose their
beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work.

What about those mobs camping out in front of Supreme Justices.
Thats a riot waiting to happen. Not to mention they are currently
breaking the law. Is that how democracy is suppose to work? If
you are a democrat you'd probably answer yes. Sacky says that
Biden aproves of them rioting peacefully. What say
you?
--


----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 11 May 2022 11:14:42 -0400 (EDT), justan <me@here.com> wrote:

"waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com>
Wrote in message:r

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:> The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the > people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not > by mob rule. (no matter what the

decision is all about). > Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the > constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back > to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.===I understand and appreciate your
point but it has been recognized over the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states. Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by
congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the law of the land and established a

"legal precedent" which has traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to impose

their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work.

What about those mobs camping out in front of Supreme Justices.
Thats a riot waiting to happen. Not to mention they are currently
breaking the law. Is that how democracy is suppose to work? If
you are a democrat you'd probably answer yes. Sacky says that
Biden aproves of them rioting peacefully. What say
you?

The SCOTUS is not supposed to be influenced by public opinion or
protests. They are only there to enforce what is written in the
constitution. Elected officials are the ones who represent popular
opinion. They are the ones who have the power to rewrite laws and even
change the constitution to what public opinion demands.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 12:27:26 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

On Wed, 11 May 2022 11:14:42 -0400 (EDT), justan <m...@here.com> wrote:

"waynebatr...@hotmail.com" <wayne.b...@gmail.com>
Wrote in message:r

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:> The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the > people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not > by mob rule. (no matter what the

decision is all about). > Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the > constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back > to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.===I understand and appreciate your
point but it has been recognized over the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states. Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by
congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the law of the land and established a

"legal precedent" which has traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to impose

their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work.

What about those mobs camping out in front of Supreme Justices.
Thats a riot waiting to happen. Not to mention they are currently
breaking the law. Is that how democracy is suppose to work? If
you are a democrat you'd probably answer yes. Sacky says that
Biden aproves of them rioting peacefully. What say
you?

The SCOTUS is not supposed to be influenced by public opinion or
protests. They are only there to enforce what is written in the constitution. Elected officials are the ones who represent popular
opinion. They are the ones who have the power to rewrite laws and even change the constitution to what public opinion demands.

===

I don't disagree but the fact is that much of what appears before the SCOTUS is not directly addressed in the constitution, amendments or federal law, and consequently requires legal interpretation. Of course that's where political opinions and
personal beliefs enter into it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

gfretwell@aol.com Wrote in message:r

On Wed, 11 May 2022 11:14:42 -0400 (EDT), justan <me@here.com> wrote:>"waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com>> Wrote in message:r>> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:> The point being, congress is

supposed to be bending to the will of the > people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not > by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about). > Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the > constitution is
actually silent on the issue and that throws it back > to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.===I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over the years that some issues are too important to leave to the
states. Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest those actions through the legal
system and that is where Roe vs Wade ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the law of the land and established a>"legal precedent" which has traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who want to
overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work. >> What about
those mobs camping out in front of Supreme Justices.> Thats a riot waiting to happen. Not to mention they are currently> breaking the law. Is that how democracy is suppose to work? If> you are a democrat you'd probably answer yes. Sacky says that> Biden
aproves of them rioting peacefully. What say> you?The SCOTUS is not supposed to be influenced by public opinion orprotests. They are only there to enforce what is written in theconstitution. Elected officials are the ones who represent popularopinion.
They are the ones who have the power to rewrite laws and evenchange the constitution to what public opinion demands.

I think you meant to say interpet rather than enforce. It looks
like the majority opinion is that the states should decide
whether abortion is criminal or not. I don't know what all the
fuss is about. The tenth ammendment pretty much clearly guided
the majority to the right conclusion.
--


----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 13 May 2022 11:13:24 -0700 (PDT),
"waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 12:27:26 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

On Wed, 11 May 2022 11:14:42 -0400 (EDT), justan <m...@here.com> wrote:

"waynebatr...@hotmail.com" <wayne.b...@gmail.com>
Wrote in message:r

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:> The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the > people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not > by mob rule. (no matter what the

decision is all about). > Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the > constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back > to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.===I understand and appreciate your
point but it has been recognized over the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states. Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by
congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the law of the land and established a

"legal precedent" which has traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to impose

their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work.

What about those mobs camping out in front of Supreme Justices.
Thats a riot waiting to happen. Not to mention they are currently
breaking the law. Is that how democracy is suppose to work? If
you are a democrat you'd probably answer yes. Sacky says that
Biden aproves of them rioting peacefully. What say
you?

The SCOTUS is not supposed to be influenced by public opinion or
protests. They are only there to enforce what is written in the
constitution. Elected officials are the ones who represent popular
opinion. They are the ones who have the power to rewrite laws and even
change the constitution to what public opinion demands.

===

I don't disagree but the fact is that much of what appears before the SCOTUS is not directly addressed in the constitution, amendments or federal law, and consequently requires legal interpretation. Of course that's where political opinions and

personal beliefs enter into it.

The answer to that is simple. If the SCOTUS can not find a power
enumerated in the constitution it is an issue to be decided by state
and local legislatures.
That may rub federalists the wrong way but it is what the 10th
amendment says.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 8 May 2022 13:54:20 -0700 (PDT),
"waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the
people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not
by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).
Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the
constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back
to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.

===

I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states. Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were added later as amendments. Many

however have been enacted into law by congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the law of
the land and established a "legal precedent" which has traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority
however and seek to impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work.

Like killing babies?

Does the viable infant get a choice?

It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus
kicking, right?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 8 May 2022 15:26:53 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com"
<3452471@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 4:54:21 PM UTC-4, waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the
people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not
by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).
Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the
constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back
to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.

===

I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states. Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were added later as amendments. Many however

have been enacted into law by congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the law of the land and
established a "legal precedent" which has traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to
impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work.

"They are in the minority however and seek to impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work."

Yet it happens repeatedly, and some of the most egregious examples have been in the last few years. And you should be careful about painting everyone with that one brush you've recently armed yourself with. For example, I'm labelled and are considered

a conservative. However, I believe that the government should not be in the marriage business, but rather just the civil union business, which after all is all they are concerned with anyway. If two "its" want to enter a civil contract, let them. But
staying true to separation of church and state, if a church refuses to perform a wedding ceremony or a bakery reuses to make a cake for them, so be it. Abortion should be legal through the 1st trimester for anyone. After that, only in rape and incest
cases or if medically necessary. After all, it is killing a human, and should have limits.

I think you'd be surprised at how large a majority would present itself to support these types of compromises and solutions if the rhetoric would subside and the discussions could take place. Unfortunately, the liberal MSM won't allow that, as they (

and others) make their money on keeping the pot stirred. Also, keep in mind that the so-called minority only appears that way because many, if not most, of the people in your perceived "minority" just don't go to the state capitol or SC steps to
demonstrate. The vast majority of them are too busy holding down jobs, raising families, and doing the work that runs this country. When they do speak up, they are either ignored or labelled by the media and elite liberals as racists, xenophobic,
misogynistic, etc. There's that pesky minority imposing their opinions and beliefs on us all again.

Personally, I think a victim of either rape or incest should know so
well before three months afterwards. Any rape victim should be
screaming for the 'morning after' pill as should any incest victim. If
72 hours have passed, then the abortion pill is an alternative.

There is no reason a rape or incest victim doesn't realize they're
pregnant within a month or two. Pregnancy tests are free at any
planned parenthood office.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 13 May 2022 15:20:52 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Fri, 13 May 2022 11:13:24 -0700 (PDT),
"waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 12:27:26 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

On Wed, 11 May 2022 11:14:42 -0400 (EDT), justan <m...@here.com> wrote:

"waynebatr...@hotmail.com" <wayne.b...@gmail.com>
Wrote in message:r

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:> The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the > people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not > by mob rule. (no matter what the

decision is all about). > Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the > constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back > to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.===I understand and appreciate your
point but it has been recognized over the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states. Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by
congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the law of the land and established a

"legal precedent" which has traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to impose

their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work.

What about those mobs camping out in front of Supreme Justices.
Thats a riot waiting to happen. Not to mention they are currently
breaking the law. Is that how democracy is suppose to work? If
you are a democrat you'd probably answer yes. Sacky says that
Biden aproves of them rioting peacefully. What say
you?

The SCOTUS is not supposed to be influenced by public opinion or
protests. They are only there to enforce what is written in the
constitution. Elected officials are the ones who represent popular
opinion. They are the ones who have the power to rewrite laws and even
change the constitution to what public opinion demands.

===

I don't disagree but the fact is that much of what appears before the SCOTUS is not directly addressed in the constitution, amendments or federal law, and consequently requires legal interpretation. Of course that's where political opinions and

personal beliefs enter into it.

The answer to that is simple. If the SCOTUS can not find a power
enumerated in the constitution it is an issue to be decided by state
and local legislatures.
That may rub federalists the wrong way but it is what the 10th
amendment says.

Exactly.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 11 May 2022 11:14:42 -0400 (EDT), justan <me@here.com> wrote:

"waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com>
Wrote in message:r

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:> The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the > people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not > by mob rule. (no matter what the

decision is all about). > Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the > constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back > to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.===I understand and appreciate your
point but it has been recognized over the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states. Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by
congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the law of the land and established a

"legal precedent" which has traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to impose

their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work.

What about those mobs camping out in front of Supreme Justices.
Thats a riot waiting to happen. Not to mention they are currently
breaking the law. Is that how democracy is suppose to work? If
you are a democrat you'd probably answer yes. Sacky says that
Biden aproves of them rioting peacefully. What say
you?

Liberals don't riot. They peacefully protest, as is demonstrated by
this peaceful protest in Minneapolis:

https://cy4ad5.c2.acecdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/IMG_20200528_115243.jpg

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 08 May 2022 13:36:41 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the
people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not
by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).
Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the
constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back
to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.

Does the viable infant get a choice?

It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus
kicking, right?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Sun, 08 May 2022 13:36:41 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the
people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not
by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).
Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the
constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back
to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.

Does the viable infant get a choice?

It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus kicking, right?

I think abortion should be legal in first trimester. Otherwise we are
back to dangerous back alley surgery. If late term abortion is legal, then
why is killing the baby a year after coming out illegal? I’d the baby is minutes from emerging, and can be legally killed, makes killing you your
kid semi legal. ???

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 16 May 2022 12:45:02 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Sun, 08 May 2022 13:36:41 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the >>people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not
by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).
Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the
constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back
to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.

Does the viable infant get a choice?

It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus >kicking, right?

Are you willing to pay for all of the kids the mother (maybe a teen)
can't afford?
I suppose you do tho, with welfare, cost of crime and the prison
system.
In reality we are really just talking about poor people. Rich folks
have never had a problem ending a pregnancy and they never will.

Poor people have abortions, rich women just have a tragic miscarriage.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 16 May 2022 13:08:58 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Fri, 13 May 2022 15:20:52 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Fri, 13 May 2022 11:13:24 -0700 (PDT),
"waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 12:27:26 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

On Wed, 11 May 2022 11:14:42 -0400 (EDT), justan <m...@here.com> wrote: >>>>

"waynebatr...@hotmail.com" <wayne.b...@gmail.com>
Wrote in message:r

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:> The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the > people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not > by mob rule. (no matter what the

decision is all about). > Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the > constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back > to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.===I understand and appreciate your
point but it has been recognized over the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states. Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by
congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the law of the land and established a

"legal precedent" which has traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to impose

their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work.

What about those mobs camping out in front of Supreme Justices.
Thats a riot waiting to happen. Not to mention they are currently
breaking the law. Is that how democracy is suppose to work? If
you are a democrat you'd probably answer yes. Sacky says that
Biden aproves of them rioting peacefully. What say
you?

The SCOTUS is not supposed to be influenced by public opinion or
protests. They are only there to enforce what is written in the
constitution. Elected officials are the ones who represent popular
opinion. They are the ones who have the power to rewrite laws and even >>>> change the constitution to what public opinion demands.

===

I don't disagree but the fact is that much of what appears before the SCOTUS is not directly addressed in the constitution, amendments or federal law, and consequently requires legal interpretation. Of course that's where political opinions and

personal beliefs enter into it.

The answer to that is simple. If the SCOTUS can not find a power
enumerated in the constitution it is an issue to be decided by state
and local legislatures.
That may rub federalists the wrong way but it is what the 10th
amendment says.

Exactly.

As far as I am concerned that is a separate issue from abortion and
could chip away at lots of abusive attacks on the 10th amendment. I
would start with the federal drug war and GCA68. Then we could start
looking at the Corps of Engineers and the alphabet agencies Nixon
established. The feds can write model legislation the states can adopt
but there is a very limited amount of power the constitution gives
them to enforce those laws if they don't involve rights conveyed in
the 14th amendment or interstate activity. A situation wholly confined
to a single state is not the fed's business.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 16 May 2022 13:07:11 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Sun, 8 May 2022 15:26:53 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com" ><3452471@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 4:54:21 PM UTC-4, waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the >>> > people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not >>> > by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).
Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the
constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back
to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.

===

I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states. Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were added later as amendments. Many

however have been enacted into law by congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the law of the
land and established a "legal precedent" which has traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however
and seek to impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work.

"They are in the minority however and seek to impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work."

Yet it happens repeatedly, and some of the most egregious examples have been in the last few years. And you should be careful about painting everyone with that one brush you've recently armed yourself with. For example, I'm labelled and are

considered a conservative. However, I believe that the government should not be in the marriage business, but rather just the civil union business, which after all is all they are concerned with anyway. If two "its" want to enter a civil contract, let
them. But staying true to separation of church and state, if a church refuses to perform a wedding ceremony or a bakery reuses to make a cake for them, so be it. Abortion should be legal through the 1st trimester for anyone. After that, only in rape
and incest cases or if medically necessary. After all, it is killing a human, and should have limits.

I think you'd be surprised at how large a majority would present itself to support these types of compromises and solutions if the rhetoric would subside and the discussions could take place. Unfortunately, the liberal MSM won't allow that, as they (

and others) make their money on keeping the pot stirred. Also, keep in mind that the so-called minority only appears that way because many, if not most, of the people in your perceived "minority" just don't go to the state capitol or SC steps to
demonstrate. The vast majority of them are too busy holding down jobs, raising families, and doing the work that runs this country. When they do speak up, they are either ignored or labelled by the media and elite liberals as racists, xenophobic,
misogynistic, etc. There's that pesky minority imposing their opinions and beliefs on us all again.

Personally, I think a victim of either rape or incest should know so
well before three months afterwards. Any rape victim should be
screaming for the 'morning after' pill as should any incest victim. If
72 hours have passed, then the abortion pill is an alternative.

There is no reason a rape or incest victim doesn't realize they're
pregnant within a month or two. Pregnancy tests are free at any
planned parenthood office.

Aren't you being a little arbitrary when you place a hard and fast
rule when it is OK to kill a baby?
BTW don't you folks want to shut planned parenthood down? Now you are
telling us they provide a valuable service.
It is this flip flopping that makes you seem confused.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 16 May 2022 23:15:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill
<califbill9998remove8@gmail.com> wrote:

John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Sun, 8 May 2022 13:54:20 -0700 (PDT),
"waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the >>>> people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not >>>> by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).
Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the
constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back
to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.

===

I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over
the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states.
Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were
added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by
congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest
those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade
ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the
law of the land and established a "legal precedent" which has
traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who
want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very
sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to
impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of
how democracy is supposed to work.

Like killing babies?

Does the viable infant get a choice?

It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus
kicking, right?

Your argument is for a viable baby. Not viable in the first trimester.
Most any abortion these days is an admission of failure. What with all the >birth control methods available.

These late term abortions are so rare the opponents can't usually cite
a case but they want folks to think that is the norm.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 16 May 2022 22:51:05 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2022 12:45:02 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Sun, 08 May 2022 13:36:41 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the >>>people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not
by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).
Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the
constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back
to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.

Does the viable infant get a choice?

It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus >>kicking, right?

Are you willing to pay for all of the kids the mother (maybe a teen)
can't afford?
I suppose you do tho, with welfare, cost of crime and the prison
system.
In reality we are really just talking about poor people. Rich folks
have never had a problem ending a pregnancy and they never will.

Poor people have abortions, rich women just have a tragic miscarriage.

Perhaps if it weren't so lucrative, there'd be fewer babies born to
teens.

The 'morning after' or 'abortion' pills are not secret. I expect those
poor kids learn about them in fourth grade.

It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus
kicking, right?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

John H <jherring@cox.net> Wrote in message:r

On Mon, 16 May 2022 22:51:05 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:>On Mon, 16 May 2022 12:45:02 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:>>>On Sun, 08 May 2022 13:36:41 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:>>>>>The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to

the will of the>>>people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not>>>by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).>>>Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the>>>constitution is actually silent on the
issue and that throws it back>>>to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move. >>>>Does the viable infant get a choice?>>>>It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus>>kicking, right?>>>Are you willing to pay for
all of the kids the mother (maybe a teen)>can't afford? >I suppose you do tho, with welfare, cost of crime and the prison>system. >In reality we are really just talking about poor people. Rich folks>have never had a problem ending a pregnancy and they
never will. >>Poor people have abortions, rich women just have a tragic miscarriage.Perhaps if it weren't so lucrative, there'd be fewer babies born toteens. The 'morning after' or 'abortion' pills are not secret. I expect thosepoor kids learn about them
in fourth grade.It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetuskicking, right?

I wonder why they are so supportive of giving women the right to
kill future democrats. Another reason to question the
intelligence of the leaders of the Democrat party.
--
lets go Brandon...


----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 16 May 2022 22:54:56 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2022 13:07:11 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Sun, 8 May 2022 15:26:53 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com" >><3452471@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 4:54:21 PM UTC-4, waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the >>>> > people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not >>>> > by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).
Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the
constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back >>>> > to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.

===

I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states. Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were added later as amendments. Many

however have been enacted into law by congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the law of the
land and established a "legal precedent" which has traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however
and seek to impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work.

"They are in the minority however and seek to impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work."

Yet it happens repeatedly, and some of the most egregious examples have been in the last few years. And you should be careful about painting everyone with that one brush you've recently armed yourself with. For example, I'm labelled and are

considered a conservative. However, I believe that the government should not be in the marriage business, but rather just the civil union business, which after all is all they are concerned with anyway. If two "its" want to enter a civil contract, let
them. But staying true to separation of church and state, if a church refuses to perform a wedding ceremony or a bakery reuses to make a cake for them, so be it. Abortion should be legal through the 1st trimester for anyone. After that, only in rape
and incest cases or if medically necessary. After all, it is killing a human, and should have limits.

I think you'd be surprised at how large a majority would present itself to support these types of compromises and solutions if the rhetoric would subside and the discussions could take place. Unfortunately, the liberal MSM won't allow that, as they (

and others) make their money on keeping the pot stirred. Also, keep in mind that the so-called minority only appears that way because many, if not most, of the people in your perceived "minority" just don't go to the state capitol or SC steps to
demonstrate. The vast majority of them are too busy holding down jobs, raising families, and doing the work that runs this country. When they do speak up, they are either ignored or labelled by the media and elite liberals as racists, xenophobic,
misogynistic, etc. There's that pesky minority imposing their opinions and beliefs on us all again.

Personally, I think a victim of either rape or incest should know so
well before three months afterwards. Any rape victim should be
screaming for the 'morning after' pill as should any incest victim. If
72 hours have passed, then the abortion pill is an alternative.

There is no reason a rape or incest victim doesn't realize they're
pregnant within a month or two. Pregnancy tests are free at any
planned parenthood office.

Aren't you being a little arbitrary when you place a hard and fast
rule when it is OK to kill a baby?

What hard and fast rule?

BTW don't you folks want to shut planned parenthood down? Now you are
telling us they provide a valuable service.
It is this flip flopping that makes you seem confused.

I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never
said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 16 May 2022 23:31:12 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2022 23:15:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill ><califbill9998remove8@gmail.com> wrote:

John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Sun, 8 May 2022 13:54:20 -0700 (PDT),
"waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the >>>>> people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not >>>>> by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).
Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the
constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back >>>>> to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.

===

I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over >>>> the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states.
Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were >>>> added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by >>>> congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest
those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade
ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the
law of the land and established a "legal precedent" which has
traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who >>>> want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very >>>> sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to >>>> impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of
how democracy is supposed to work.

Like killing babies?

Does the viable infant get a choice?

It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus
kicking, right?

Your argument is for a viable baby. Not viable in the first trimester. >>Most any abortion these days is an admission of failure. What with all the >>birth control methods available.

These late term abortions are so rare the opponents can't usually cite
a case but they want folks to think that is the norm.

Yeah, 6200 dead babies are not worth mentioning. Better do some
reading, Greg.

https://www.liveaction.org/news/cdc-report-later-abortions-often-public-believe/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 17 May 2022 10:09:38 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart
<me@yourservice.com> wrote:

John H <jherring@cox.net> Wrote in message:r

On Mon, 16 May 2022 22:51:05 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:>On Mon, 16 May 2022 12:45:02 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:>>>On Sun, 08 May 2022 13:36:41 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:>>>>>The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to

the will of the>>>people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not>>>by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).>>>Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the>>>constitution is actually silent on the
issue and that throws it back>>>to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move. >>>>Does the viable infant get a choice?>>>>It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus>>kicking, right?>>>Are you willing to pay for
all of the kids the mother (maybe a teen)>can't afford? >I suppose you do tho, with welfare, cost of crime and the prison>system. >In reality we are really just talking about poor people. Rich folks>have never had a problem ending a

pregnancy and they never will. >>Poor people have abortions, rich women just have a tragic miscarriage.Perhaps if it weren't so lucrative, there'd be fewer babies born toteens. The 'morning after' or 'abortion' pills are not secret. I expect thosepoor

kids learn about them in fourth grade.It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetuskicking, right?

I wonder why they are so supportive of giving women the right to
kill future democrats. Another reason to question the
intelligence of the leaders of the Democrat party.

LOL!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 17 May 2022 06:52:18 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2022 22:51:05 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2022 12:45:02 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Sun, 08 May 2022 13:36:41 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the >>>>people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not >>>>by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).
Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the
constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back
to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.

Does the viable infant get a choice?

It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus >>>kicking, right?

Are you willing to pay for all of the kids the mother (maybe a teen)
can't afford?
I suppose you do tho, with welfare, cost of crime and the prison
system.
In reality we are really just talking about poor people. Rich folks
have never had a problem ending a pregnancy and they never will.

Poor people have abortions, rich women just have a tragic miscarriage.

Perhaps if it weren't so lucrative, there'd be fewer babies born to
teens.

Where is the connection?

The 'morning after' or 'abortion' pills are not secret. I expect those
poor kids learn about them in fourth grade.

If these people were capable of wise decisions they wouldn't be poor.

It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus >kicking, right?

I would rather kill a kicking fetus than have to kill them when they
are kicking in my door.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:11:19 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2022 23:31:12 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2022 23:15:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill >><califbill9998remove8@gmail.com> wrote:

John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Sun, 8 May 2022 13:54:20 -0700 (PDT),
"waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the >>>>>> people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not >>>>>> by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).
Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the
constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back >>>>>> to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.

===

I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over >>>>> the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states. >>>>> Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were >>>>> added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by >>>>> congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest
those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade >>>>> ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the >>>>> law of the land and established a "legal precedent" which has
traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who >>>>> want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very >>>>> sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to >>>>> impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of >>>>> how democracy is supposed to work.

Like killing babies?

Does the viable infant get a choice?

It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus
kicking, right?

Your argument is for a viable baby. Not viable in the first trimester. >>>Most any abortion these days is an admission of failure. What with all the >>>birth control methods available.

These late term abortions are so rare the opponents can't usually cite
a case but they want folks to think that is the norm.

Yeah, 6200 dead babies are not worth mentioning. Better do some
reading, Greg.

https://www.liveaction.org/news/cdc-report-later-abortions-often-public-believe/

When I read I prefer the source document, not a book report from a
biased writer.
The 2019 is out now and " (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’
gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at =21 weeks’ " https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/index.htm

This is not a big issue. Then you need to ask, how many were medically indicated? (otherwise it is a crime just about everywhere)
Are we supposed to risk the life of the mother or deliver a baby with
a fatal birth defect that will have them suffering for a few months
before they die, if they are lucky.
Find me one documented case of a healthy mother aborting a healthy
child late term. Just one.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

Aren't you being a little arbitrary when you place a hard and fast
rule when it is OK to kill a baby?

What hard and fast rule?

Didn't you want to specify a number of weeks?

BTW don't you folks want to shut planned parenthood down? Now you are >>telling us they provide a valuable service.
It is this flip flopping that makes you seem confused.

I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never
said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?

If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of your
comrades burn them. (google it)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:12:13 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Tue, 17 May 2022 10:09:38 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart ><me@yourservice.com> wrote:

John H <jherring@cox.net> Wrote in message:r

On Mon, 16 May 2022 22:51:05 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:>On Mon, 16 May 2022 12:45:02 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:>>>On Sun, 08 May 2022 13:36:41 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:>>>>>The point being, congress is supposed to be bending

to the will of the>>>people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not>>>by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).>>>Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the>>>constitution is actually silent on the
issue and that throws it back>>>to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move. >>>>Does the viable infant get a choice?>>>>It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus>>kicking, right?>>>Are you willing to pay for
all of the kids the mother (maybe a teen)>can't afford? >I suppose you do tho, with welfare, cost of crime and the prison>system. >In reality we are really just talking about poor people. Rich folks>have never had a problem ending a

pregnancy and they never will. >>Poor people have abortions, rich women just have a tragic miscarriage.Perhaps if it weren't so lucrative, there'd be fewer babies born toteens. The 'morning after' or 'abortion' pills are not secret. I expect thosepoor

kids learn about them in fourth grade.It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetuskicking, right?

I wonder why they are so supportive of giving women the right to
kill future democrats. Another reason to question the
intelligence of the leaders of the Democrat party.

LOL!

They may be willing to cull the herd to keep health, welfare and crime
cost down so their programs look more affordable.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

gfretwell@aol.com Wrote in message:r

On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:12:13 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:>On Tue, 17 May 2022 10:09:38 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart><me@yourservice.com> wrote:>>>John H <jherring@cox.net> Wrote in message:r>>> On Mon, 16 May 2022 22:51:05 -0400, gfretwell@

aol.com wrote:>On Mon, 16 May 2022 12:45:02 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:>>>On Sun, 08 May 2022 13:36:41 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:>>>>>The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the>>>people but the SCOTUS only
interprets the constitution and that is not>>>by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).>>>Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the>>>constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back>>>to the states. If
you don't like the state you live in, move. >>>>Does the viable infant get a choice?>>>>It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus>>kicking, right?>>>Are you willing to pay for all of the kids the mother (maybe a teen)>can't
afford? >I suppose you do tho, with welfare, cost of crime and the prison>system. >In reality we are really just talking about poor people. Rich folks>have never had a problem ending a>>pregnancy and they never will. >>Poor people have abortions, rich
women just have a tragic miscarriage.Perhaps if it weren't so lucrative, there'd be fewer babies born toteens. The 'morning after' or 'abortion' pills are not secret. I expect thosepoor kids learn about them in fourth grade.It's not 'pro-choice', it's '
pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetuskicking, right?>>>>I wonder why they are so supportive of giving women the right to>> kill future democrats. Another reason to question the>> intelligence of the leaders of the Democrat party.>>LOL!They may be
willing to cull the herd to keep health, welfare and crimecost down so their programs look more affordable.

There's the right way to do thingd and there's the democrat way.
How will we ever be able to identify wrong thinking evil
bastards when the democrat party goes tits up?


----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

gfretwell@aol.com Wrote in message:r

On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:>>Aren't you being a little arbitrary when you place a hard and fast>>rule when it is OK to kill a baby? >>What hard and fast rule?Didn't you want to specify a number of weeks? >>>BTW

don't you folks want to shut planned parenthood down? Now you are>>telling us they provide a valuable service. >>It is this flip flopping that makes you seem confused.>>I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never>said anything
like that. So, where is the flip flopping?If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of yourcomrades burn them. (google it)

If a woman seeks an abortion, planned parenthood failed her.
--
lets go Brandon...


----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 12:33:49 AM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jher...@cox.net> wrote:

I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never >said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?

If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of your
comrades burn them. (google it)

Your comrades seem to have convinced you that this is a binary issue. It is not. Most folks who believe that abortion should not be legal after the fetus is viable don't consider themselves to be "pro-lifers", and would never dream of burning a PP.
That's just hyperbole on your part. There are certainly extreme views on both sides of this issue. But while the liberal MSM would have you believe otherwise, those people are the exception, not the rule.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 08 May 2022 13:36:41 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the
people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not
by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).
Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the
constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back
to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.

You're an amazing moron. The constitution is silent about lots of
things. Get back to us when your Constitutional law diploma arrives in
the mail.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 18 May 2022 11:40:23 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com" <3452471@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 12:33:49 AM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jher...@cox.net> wrote:

I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never
said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?

If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of your
comrades burn them. (google it)

Your comrades seem to have convinced you that this is a binary issue. It is not. Most folks who believe that abortion should not be legal after the fetus is viable don't consider themselves to be "pro-lifers", and would never dream of burning a PP.

That's just hyperbole on your part. There are certainly extreme views on both sides of this issue. But while the liberal MSM would have you believe otherwise, those people are the exception, not the rule.

Abortion, like guns are issues driven be extremists and they are
happily exploited by politicians to obfuscate the real issues that are
being ignored.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 18 May 2022 00:17:51 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Tue, 17 May 2022 06:52:18 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2022 22:51:05 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2022 12:45:02 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Sun, 08 May 2022 13:36:41 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the >>>>>people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not >>>>>by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).
Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the >>>>>constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back >>>>>to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.

Does the viable infant get a choice?

It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus >>>>kicking, right?

Are you willing to pay for all of the kids the mother (maybe a teen) >>>can't afford?
I suppose you do tho, with welfare, cost of crime and the prison
system.
In reality we are really just talking about poor people. Rich folks
have never had a problem ending a pregnancy and they never will.

Poor people have abortions, rich women just have a tragic miscarriage.

Perhaps if it weren't so lucrative, there'd be fewer babies born to
teens.

Where is the connection?

The 'morning after' or 'abortion' pills are not secret. I expect those
poor kids learn about them in fourth grade.

If these people were capable of wise decisions they wouldn't be poor.

Is taking a pill a 'wise decision'? Is it more wise than having an
abortion?

It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus >>kicking, right?

I would rather kill a kicking fetus than have to kill them when they
are kicking in my door.

So all babies born to the poor will kick at your door?

Nonsensical comments, Greg.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 18 May 2022 00:33:37 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

Aren't you being a little arbitrary when you place a hard and fast
rule when it is OK to kill a baby?

What hard and fast rule?

Didn't you want to specify a number of weeks?

BTW don't you folks want to shut planned parenthood down? Now you are >>>telling us they provide a valuable service.
It is this flip flopping that makes you seem confused.

I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never
said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?

If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of your
comrades burn them. (google it)

I don't attack PP. I may attack all the abortions they perform.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 18 May 2022 12:07:37 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart
<me@yourservice.com> wrote:

gfretwell@aol.com Wrote in message:r

On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:>>Aren't you being a little arbitrary when you place a hard and fast>>rule when it is OK to kill a baby? >>What hard and fast rule?Didn't you want to specify a number of weeks? >>>BTW

don't you folks want to shut planned parenthood down? Now you are>>telling us they provide a valuable service. >>It is this flip flopping that makes you seem confused.>>I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never>said anything
like that. So, where is the flip flopping?If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of yourcomrades burn them. (google it)

If a woman seeks an abortion, planned parenthood failed her.

Exactly. Perhaps Greg doesn't get it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 18 May 2022 00:46:54 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:11:19 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2022 23:31:12 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2022 23:15:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill >>><califbill9998remove8@gmail.com> wrote:

John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Sun, 8 May 2022 13:54:20 -0700 (PDT),
"waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote: >>>>>>> The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the >>>>>>> people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not >>>>>>> by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).

Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the
constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back >>>>>>> to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.

===

I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over >>>>>> the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states. >>>>>> Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were >>>>>> added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by >>>>>> congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest >>>>>> those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade >>>>>> ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the >>>>>> law of the land and established a "legal precedent" which has
traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who >>>>>> want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very >>>>>> sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to >>>>>> impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of >>>>>> how democracy is supposed to work.

Like killing babies?

Does the viable infant get a choice?

It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus >>>>> kicking, right?

Your argument is for a viable baby. Not viable in the first trimester. >>>>Most any abortion these days is an admission of failure. What with all the >>>>birth control methods available.

These late term abortions are so rare the opponents can't usually cite
a case but they want folks to think that is the norm.

Yeah, 6200 dead babies are not worth mentioning. Better do some
reading, Greg.

https://www.liveaction.org/news/cdc-report-later-abortions-often-public-believe/

When I read I prefer the source document, not a book report from a
biased writer.
The 2019 is out now and " (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’
gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at =21 weeks’ " >https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/index.htm

This is not a big issue. Then you need to ask, how many were medically >indicated? (otherwise it is a crime just about everywhere)
Are we supposed to risk the life of the mother or deliver a baby with
a fatal birth defect that will have them suffering for a few months
before they die, if they are lucky.
Find me one documented case of a healthy mother aborting a healthy
child late term. Just one.

Most healthy mothers aborting a healthy late term baby don't advertise
the fact.

But here, another source:

"Late-term abortion is, fortunately, relatively rare. According to the
most recent CDC data, only 1.3 percent of abortions occur after 21
weeks. However, given the sheer number of abortions in this country
(638,169 reported to the CDC), that means there were at least 8,000
late-term abortions in the United States. As Jonah Goldberg notes
today, the pro-abortion-rights Guttmacher Institute puts the number
even higher, at roughly 12,000 late-term abortions per year. That’s a
lot of babies dying late in pregnancy. To gain a sense of perspective,
that number is comparable to the number of murders committed by
firearms in the same time period."

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/truth-about-late-term-abortions/

That's a lot of babies!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 18 May 2022 16:41:58 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2022 11:40:23 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com" ><3452471@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 12:33:49 AM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jher...@cox.net> wrote:

I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never
said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?

If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of your
comrades burn them. (google it)

Your comrades seem to have convinced you that this is a binary issue. It is not. Most folks who believe that abortion should not be legal after the fetus is viable don't consider themselves to be "pro-lifers", and would never dream of burning a PP.

That's just hyperbole on your part. There are certainly extreme views on both sides of this issue. But while the liberal MSM would have you believe otherwise, those people are the exception, not the rule.

Abortion, like guns are issues driven be extremists and they are
happily exploited by politicians to obfuscate the real issues that are
being ignored.

You're right. Driven by right wing, pieces of shit, just like you.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 18 May 2022 17:36:20 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2022 00:33:37 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

Aren't you being a little arbitrary when you place a hard and fast
rule when it is OK to kill a baby?

What hard and fast rule?

Didn't you want to specify a number of weeks?

BTW don't you folks want to shut planned parenthood down? Now you are >>>>telling us they provide a valuable service.
It is this flip flopping that makes you seem confused.

I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never >>>said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?

If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of your
comrades burn them. (google it)

I don't attack PP. I may attack all the abortions they perform.

Too bad your father didn't pull out.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 18 May 2022 17:41:19 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2022 00:46:54 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:11:19 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2022 23:31:12 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2022 23:15:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill >>>><califbill9998remove8@gmail.com> wrote:

John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Sun, 8 May 2022 13:54:20 -0700 (PDT),
"waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote: >>>>>>>> The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the >>>>>>>> people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not >>>>>>>> by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).

Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the
constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back >>>>>>>> to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.

===

I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over >>>>>>> the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states. >>>>>>> Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were >>>>>>> added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by >>>>>>> congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest >>>>>>> those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade >>>>>>> ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the >>>>>>> law of the land and established a "legal precedent" which has
traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who >>>>>>> want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very >>>>>>> sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to >>>>>>> impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of >>>>>>> how democracy is supposed to work.

Like killing babies?

Does the viable infant get a choice?

It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus >>>>>> kicking, right?

Your argument is for a viable baby. Not viable in the first trimester. >>>>>Most any abortion these days is an admission of failure. What with all the
birth control methods available.

These late term abortions are so rare the opponents can't usually cite >>>>a case but they want folks to think that is the norm.

Yeah, 6200 dead babies are not worth mentioning. Better do some
reading, Greg.

https://www.liveaction.org/news/cdc-report-later-abortions-often-public-believe/

When I read I prefer the source document, not a book report from a
biased writer.
The 2019 is out now and " (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’
gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at =21 weeks’ " >>https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/index.htm

This is not a big issue. Then you need to ask, how many were medically >>indicated? (otherwise it is a crime just about everywhere)
Are we supposed to risk the life of the mother or deliver a baby with
a fatal birth defect that will have them suffering for a few months
before they die, if they are lucky.
Find me one documented case of a healthy mother aborting a healthy
child late term. Just one.

Most healthy mothers aborting a healthy late term baby don't advertise
the fact.

But here, another source:

"Late-term abortion is, fortunately, relatively rare. According to the
most recent CDC data, only 1.3 percent of abortions occur after 21
weeks. However, given the sheer number of abortions in this country
(638,169 reported to the CDC), that means there were at least 8,000
late-term abortions in the United States. As Jonah Goldberg notes
today, the pro-abortion-rights Guttmacher Institute puts the number
even higher, at roughly 12,000 late-term abortions per year. That’s a
lot of babies dying late in pregnancy. To gain a sense of perspective,
that number is comparable to the number of murders committed by
firearms in the same time period."

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/truth-about-late-term-abortions/

That's a lot of babies!

You're a lot of stupid.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 18 May 2022 17:36:49 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2022 12:07:37 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart ><me@yourservice.com> wrote:

gfretwell@aol.com Wrote in message:r

On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:>>Aren't you being a little arbitrary when you place a hard and fast>>rule when it is OK to kill a baby? >>What hard and fast rule?Didn't you want to specify a number of weeks? >>>

BTW don't you folks want to shut planned parenthood down? Now you are>>telling us they provide a valuable service. >>It is this flip flopping that makes you seem confused.>>I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never>said
anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of yourcomrades burn them. (google it)

If a woman seeks an abortion, planned parenthood failed her.

Exactly. Perhaps Greg doesn't get it.

I probably get it more than you. I have seen more than my share of
abortions and shotgun weddings in my life.
Shit happens and when you are talking about young people, lots of shit
happens.

No not to me (before you ask) I was more careful than most because I
have seen the problem up close. I have never been a "baby daddy".

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 18 May 2022 17:36:20 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2022 00:33:37 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

Aren't you being a little arbitrary when you place a hard and fast
rule when it is OK to kill a baby?

What hard and fast rule?

Didn't you want to specify a number of weeks?

BTW don't you folks want to shut planned parenthood down? Now you are >>>>telling us they provide a valuable service.
It is this flip flopping that makes you seem confused.

I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never >>>said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?

If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of your
comrades burn them. (google it)

I don't attack PP. I may attack all the abortions they perform.

You just have to understand this is a total process. We need to try to
prevent pregnancy but once it happens there needs to be another plan.
That is why the morning after pill is called "Plan B".
Unfortunately I doubt women want to slam one of them every time they
have sex.
Levonorgestrel is not without side effects.

More common
Heavy or light menstrual bleeding
Abdominal or stomach pain
dizziness
headache
nausea
tenderness of the breasts
unusual tiredness or weakness
vomiting

Less common

Diarrhea
Absent missed or irregular menstrual periods
cramps
Irregular menstruation
Pain
Pain in the pelvis
Stopping of menstrual bleeding

How many of those would a woman want, just in case?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 18 May 2022 17:33:57 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2022 00:17:51 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Tue, 17 May 2022 06:52:18 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2022 22:51:05 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2022 12:45:02 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Sun, 08 May 2022 13:36:41 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the >>>>>>people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not >>>>>>by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).
Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the >>>>>>constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back >>>>>>to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.

Does the viable infant get a choice?

It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus >>>>>kicking, right?

Are you willing to pay for all of the kids the mother (maybe a teen) >>>>can't afford?
I suppose you do tho, with welfare, cost of crime and the prison >>>>system.
In reality we are really just talking about poor people. Rich folks >>>>have never had a problem ending a pregnancy and they never will.

Poor people have abortions, rich women just have a tragic miscarriage.

Perhaps if it weren't so lucrative, there'd be fewer babies born to >>>teens.

Where is the connection?

The 'morning after' or 'abortion' pills are not secret. I expect those >>>poor kids learn about them in fourth grade.

If these people were capable of wise decisions they wouldn't be poor.

Is taking a pill a 'wise decision'? Is it more wise than having an
abortion?

Yes it is a decision and one they have to consciously make. They need
to go to the effort to get a prescription, come up with the $10 a
month to pay, then remember to take the pills on time and in sync.
If they screw up the pills, they can increase the chance of getting
pregnant.
That involves a conscious effort and more than a little wisdom.
Throw a few drugs in the mix and this may be beyond their ability

It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus >>>kicking, right?

I would rather kill a kicking fetus than have to kill them when they
are kicking in my door.

So all babies born to the poor will kick at your door?

It is a statistical fact. Where is most of the crime and most of the
murders?
The "My door" part was metaphorical but it wasn't always. I lived in
SE DC where these kind of crimes were more prevalent until I could
afford to get out. I probably knew a lot more people in that
socioeconomic situation than you did.
These are not the most responsible bunch.

All that said, if they would pop Norplants in those girls in middle
school, I would like to chip in.
Try to get the righteous right to agree with that.
You may be more progressive than some of your counterparts but you get
judged by the people you associate with.

Nonsensical comments, Greg.

Actually not. I only deal with reality.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 18 May 2022 17:41:19 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2022 00:46:54 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:11:19 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2022 23:31:12 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2022 23:15:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill >>>><califbill9998remove8@gmail.com> wrote:

John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Sun, 8 May 2022 13:54:20 -0700 (PDT),
"waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote: >>>>>>>> The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the >>>>>>>> people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not >>>>>>>> by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).

Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the
constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back >>>>>>>> to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.

===

I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over >>>>>>> the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states. >>>>>>> Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were >>>>>>> added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by >>>>>>> congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest >>>>>>> those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade >>>>>>> ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the >>>>>>> law of the land and established a "legal precedent" which has
traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who >>>>>>> want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very >>>>>>> sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to >>>>>>> impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of >>>>>>> how democracy is supposed to work.

Like killing babies?

Does the viable infant get a choice?

It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus >>>>>> kicking, right?

Your argument is for a viable baby. Not viable in the first trimester. >>>>>Most any abortion these days is an admission of failure. What with all the
birth control methods available.

These late term abortions are so rare the opponents can't usually cite >>>>a case but they want folks to think that is the norm.

Yeah, 6200 dead babies are not worth mentioning. Better do some
reading, Greg.

https://www.liveaction.org/news/cdc-report-later-abortions-often-public-believe/

When I read I prefer the source document, not a book report from a
biased writer.
The 2019 is out now and " (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ >>gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at =21 weeks’ " >>https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/index.htm

This is not a big issue. Then you need to ask, how many were medically >>indicated? (otherwise it is a crime just about everywhere)
Are we supposed to risk the life of the mother or deliver a baby with
a fatal birth defect that will have them suffering for a few months
before they die, if they are lucky.
Find me one documented case of a healthy mother aborting a healthy
child late term. Just one.

Most healthy mothers aborting a healthy late term baby don't advertise
the fact.

But here, another source:

"Late-term abortion is, fortunately, relatively rare. According to the
most recent CDC data, only 1.3 percent of abortions occur after 21
weeks. However, given the sheer number of abortions in this country
(638,169 reported to the CDC), that means there were at least 8,000
late-term abortions in the United States. As Jonah Goldberg notes
today, the pro-abortion-rights Guttmacher Institute puts the number
even higher, at roughly 12,000 late-term abortions per year. That’s a
lot of babies dying late in pregnancy. To gain a sense of perspective,
that number is comparable to the number of murders committed by
firearms in the same time period."

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/truth-about-late-term-abortions/

That's a lot of babies!

I see some cherry picked "facts" but what I don't see is the medical justification for those abortions.

This is mostly hyperbole used to justify banning all abortions. If
you are falling for it, you are part of the problem.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 18 May 2022 19:46:27 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

Is taking a pill a 'wise decision'? Is it more wise than having an >>abortion?

Yes it is a decision and one they have to consciously make. They need
to go to the effort to get a prescription, come up with the $10 a
month to pay, then remember to take the pills on time and in sync.
If they screw up the pills, they can increase the chance of getting
pregnant.
That involves a conscious effort and more than a little wisdom.
Throw a few drugs in the mix and this may be beyond their ability

You're suggesting that taking one morning after or two abortion pills
is a bigger decision than getting an abortion. Do you think abortions
are free? The pills may cost $100, now do some reading:

Are Abortions Free At Planned Parenthood?
Abortion is often sold as the most financially beneficial option for
women experiencing unplanned pregnancies. Because of that, we’re often
asked if abortions are free. The answer is no — abortions are not free
at Planned Parenthood or other abortion clinics. Each procedure costs
hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars depending on what stage of
pregnancy the woman is in.

It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus >>>>kicking, right?

I would rather kill a kicking fetus than have to kill them when they
are kicking in my door.

So all babies born to the poor will kick at your door?

It is a statistical fact. Where is most of the crime and most of the
murders?
The "My door" part was metaphorical but it wasn't always. I lived in
SE DC where these kind of crimes were more prevalent until I could
afford to get out. I probably knew a lot more people in that
socioeconomic situation than you did.
These are not the most responsible bunch.

All that said, if they would pop Norplants in those girls in middle
school, I would like to chip in.
Try to get the righteous right to agree with that.
You may be more progressive than some of your counterparts but you get
judged by the people you associate with.

Nonsensical comments, Greg.

Actually not. I only deal with reality.

I do agree that the poor should lhave fewer kids. However, the pills
work, are cheap, and require a hell of a lot less thought than a 12
week abortion.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 18 May 2022 20:04:54 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2022 17:41:19 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2022 00:46:54 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:11:19 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2022 23:31:12 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2022 23:15:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill >>>>><califbill9998remove8@gmail.com> wrote:

John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Sun, 8 May 2022 13:54:20 -0700 (PDT),
"waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the

people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not
by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).
Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the
constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back >>>>>>>>> to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move. >>>>>>>>

===

I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over >>>>>>>> the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states. >>>>>>>> Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were
added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by
congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest >>>>>>>> those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade >>>>>>>> ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the >>>>>>>> law of the land and established a "legal precedent" which has
traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who >>>>>>>> want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very
sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to
impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of >>>>>>>> how democracy is supposed to work.

Like killing babies?

Does the viable infant get a choice?

It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus >>>>>>> kicking, right?

Your argument is for a viable baby. Not viable in the first trimester. >>>>>>Most any abortion these days is an admission of failure. What with all the
birth control methods available.

These late term abortions are so rare the opponents can't usually cite >>>>>a case but they want folks to think that is the norm.

Yeah, 6200 dead babies are not worth mentioning. Better do some >>>>reading, Greg.

https://www.liveaction.org/news/cdc-report-later-abortions-often-public-believe/

When I read I prefer the source document, not a book report from a
biased writer.
The 2019 is out now and " (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ >>>gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at =21 weeks’ " >>>https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/index.htm

This is not a big issue. Then you need to ask, how many were medically >>>indicated? (otherwise it is a crime just about everywhere)
Are we supposed to risk the life of the mother or deliver a baby with
a fatal birth defect that will have them suffering for a few months >>>before they die, if they are lucky.
Find me one documented case of a healthy mother aborting a healthy
child late term. Just one.

Most healthy mothers aborting a healthy late term baby don't advertise
the fact.

But here, another source:

"Late-term abortion is, fortunately, relatively rare. According to the
most recent CDC data, only 1.3 percent of abortions occur after 21
weeks. However, given the sheer number of abortions in this country >>(638,169 reported to the CDC), that means there were at least 8,000 >>late-term abortions in the United States. As Jonah Goldberg notes
today, the pro-abortion-rights Guttmacher Institute puts the number
even higher, at roughly 12,000 late-term abortions per year. That’s a
lot of babies dying late in pregnancy. To gain a sense of perspective,
that number is comparable to the number of murders committed by
firearms in the same time period."

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/truth-about-late-term-abortions/

That's a lot of babies!

I see some cherry picked "facts" but what I don't see is the medical >justification for those abortions.

This is mostly hyperbole used to justify banning all abortions. If
you are falling for it, you are part of the problem.

OK, Greg. It's all bullshit. We both know better.

Currently, there is no medical justification required for most
abortions. Perhaps that's why you see none.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 18 May 2022 19:55:22 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2022 17:36:20 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2022 00:33:37 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

Aren't you being a little arbitrary when you place a hard and fast >>>>>rule when it is OK to kill a baby?

What hard and fast rule?

Didn't you want to specify a number of weeks?

BTW don't you folks want to shut planned parenthood down? Now you are >>>>>telling us they provide a valuable service.
It is this flip flopping that makes you seem confused.

I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never >>>>said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?

If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of your
comrades burn them. (google it)

I don't attack PP. I may attack all the abortions they perform.

You just have to understand this is a total process. We need to try to >prevent pregnancy but once it happens there needs to be another plan.
That is why the morning after pill is called "Plan B".
Unfortunately I doubt women want to slam one of them every time they
have sex.
Levonorgestrel is not without side effects.

More common
Heavy or light menstrual bleeding
Abdominal or stomach pain
dizziness
headache
nausea
tenderness of the breasts
unusual tiredness or weakness
vomiting

Less common

Diarrhea
Absent missed or irregular menstrual periods
cramps
Irregular menstruation
Pain
Pain in the pelvis
Stopping of menstrual bleeding

How many of those would a woman want, just in case?

Do some reading on the possible side effects of abortion - both short
and long term: https://www.glozine.com/lifestyle/side-effects-of-abortion-8-risks-on-body-after-abortions.html

Gosh!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 18 May 2022 19:59:13 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2022 17:36:49 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2022 12:07:37 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart >><me@yourservice.com> wrote:

gfretwell@aol.com Wrote in message:r

On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:>>Aren't you being a little arbitrary when you place a hard and fast>>rule when it is OK to kill a baby? >>What hard and fast rule?Didn't you want to specify a number of weeks? >>>

BTW don't you folks want to shut planned parenthood down? Now you are>>telling us they provide a valuable service. >>It is this flip flopping that makes you seem confused.>>I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never>said
anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of yourcomrades burn them. (google it)

If a woman seeks an abortion, planned parenthood failed her.

Exactly. Perhaps Greg doesn't get it.

I probably get it more than you. I have seen more than my share of
abortions and shotgun weddings in my life.
Shit happens and when you are talking about young people, lots of shit >happens.

No not to me (before you ask) I was more careful than most because I
have seen the problem up close. I have never been a "baby daddy".

How many times have you been a 'dead baby daddy'?

Justans' comment is the truth. "If a woman seeks an abortion, planned parenthood failed her. "

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 4:42:12 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2022 11:40:23 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com" <345...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 12:33:49 AM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jher...@cox.net> wrote:

I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never >> >said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?

If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of your
comrades burn them. (google it)

Your comrades seem to have convinced you that this is a binary issue. It is not. Most folks who believe that abortion should not be legal after the fetus is viable don't consider themselves to be "pro-lifers", and would never dream of burning a PP.

That's just hyperbole on your part. There are certainly extreme views on both sides of this issue. But while the liberal MSM would have you believe otherwise, those people are the exception, not the rule.

Abortion, like guns are issues driven be extremists and they are

happily exploited by politicians to obfuscate the real issues that are
being ignored.

Let me fix that for you:
Abortion, like guns are issues driven by politicians to obfuscate the real issues that they want to ignore.

You wrote, "If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer." So you attempted to pigeon-hole anyone that doesn't believe in abortion up to delivery as a "pro-lifer", and if they don't "attack" PP they are a rare one. That's just false. And binary
thinking.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

John H <jherring@cox.net> Wrote in message:r

On Wed, 18 May 2022 19:46:27 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:>>Is taking a pill a 'wise decision'? Is it more wise than having an>>abortion? >>Yes it is a decision and one they have to consciously make. They need>to go to the effort to get a

prescription, come up with the $10 a>month to pay, then remember to take the pills on time and in sync.>If they screw up the pills, they can increase the chance of getting>pregnant.>That involves a conscious effort and more than a little wisdom. >Throw a
few drugs in the mix and this may be beyond their ability>You're suggesting that taking one morning after or two abortion pillsis a bigger decision than getting an abortion. Do you think abortionsare free? The pills may cost $100, now do some reading:Are
Abortions Free At Planned Parenthood? Abortion is often sold as the most financially beneficial option forwomen experiencing unplanned pregnancies. Because of that, we’re oftenasked if abortions are free. The answer is no — abortions are not freeat
Planned Parenthood or other abortion clinics. Each procedure costshundreds, if not thousands, of dollars depending on what stage ofpregnancy the woman is in.>>>>>It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus>>>>kicking, right?>>>>>

I would rather kill a kicking fetus than have to kill them when they>>>are kicking in my door. >>>>So all babies born to the poor will kick at your door?>>It is a statistical fact. Where is most of the crime and most of the>murders?>The "My door" part

was metaphorical but it wasn't always. I lived in>SE DC where these kind of crimes were more prevalent until I could>afford to get out. I probably knew a lot more people in that>socioeconomic situation than you did. >These are not the most responsible
bunch. >>All that said, if they would pop Norplants in those girls in middle>school, I would like to chip in. >Try to get the righteous right to agree with that. >You may be more progressive than some of your counterparts but you get>judged by the
people you associate with. >>>>Nonsensical comments, Greg.>>Actually not. I only deal with reality. I do agree that the poor should lhave fewer kids. However, the pillswork, are cheap, and require a hell of a lot less thought than a 12week abortion.

ABORTIONS R US ought to be the official name for PP. Lets call a
spade a spade.
--
lets go Brandon...


----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 19 May 2022 06:50:22 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2022 19:55:22 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2022 17:36:20 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2022 00:33:37 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

Aren't you being a little arbitrary when you place a hard and fast >>>>>>rule when it is OK to kill a baby?

What hard and fast rule?

Didn't you want to specify a number of weeks?

BTW don't you folks want to shut planned parenthood down? Now you are >>>>>>telling us they provide a valuable service.
It is this flip flopping that makes you seem confused.

I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never >>>>>said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?

If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of your
comrades burn them. (google it)

I don't attack PP. I may attack all the abortions they perform.

You just have to understand this is a total process. We need to try to >>prevent pregnancy but once it happens there needs to be another plan.
That is why the morning after pill is called "Plan B".
Unfortunately I doubt women want to slam one of them every time they
have sex.
Levonorgestrel is not without side effects.

More common
Heavy or light menstrual bleeding
Abdominal or stomach pain
dizziness
headache
nausea
tenderness of the breasts
unusual tiredness or weakness
vomiting

Less common

Diarrhea
Absent missed or irregular menstrual periods
cramps
Irregular menstruation
Pain
Pain in the pelvis
Stopping of menstrual bleeding

How many of those would a woman want, just in case?

Do some reading on the possible side effects of abortion - both short
and long term: >https://www.glozine.com/lifestyle/side-effects-of-abortion-8-risks-on-body-after-abortions.html

Gosh!

I see your "risk of abortion" and raise you the risk of pregnancy. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/pregnancy-complications.html

Maybe we should just tell women to stop having sex. Maybe just be
lesbians.
Problem solved.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 19 May 2022 06:46:15 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2022 19:46:27 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

Is taking a pill a 'wise decision'? Is it more wise than having an >>>abortion?

Yes it is a decision and one they have to consciously make. They need
to go to the effort to get a prescription, come up with the $10 a
month to pay, then remember to take the pills on time and in sync.
If they screw up the pills, they can increase the chance of getting >>pregnant.
That involves a conscious effort and more than a little wisdom.
Throw a few drugs in the mix and this may be beyond their ability

You're suggesting that taking one morning after or two abortion pills
is a bigger decision than getting an abortion. Do you think abortions
are free? The pills may cost $100, now do some reading:

Are Abortions Free At Planned Parenthood?
Abortion is often sold as the most financially beneficial option for
women experiencing unplanned pregnancies. Because of that, we’re often >asked if abortions are free. The answer is no — abortions are not free
at Planned Parenthood or other abortion clinics. Each procedure costs >hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars depending on what stage of
pregnancy the woman is in.

What part of irresponsible are you confused about?
You are extending your privileged white boy thinking onto a society
that isn't.
BTW I am sure lots of abortions get dumped back on the public dime
somehow and there should be more. It is the most efficient use of the
money unless you are using mandatory implants.

Sell that.

It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus >>>>>kicking, right?

I would rather kill a kicking fetus than have to kill them when they >>>>are kicking in my door.

So all babies born to the poor will kick at your door?

It is a statistical fact. Where is most of the crime and most of the >>murders?
The "My door" part was metaphorical but it wasn't always. I lived in
SE DC where these kind of crimes were more prevalent until I could
afford to get out. I probably knew a lot more people in that
socioeconomic situation than you did.
These are not the most responsible bunch.

All that said, if they would pop Norplants in those girls in middle
school, I would like to chip in.
Try to get the righteous right to agree with that.
You may be more progressive than some of your counterparts but you get >>judged by the people you associate with.

Nonsensical comments, Greg.

Actually not. I only deal with reality.

I do agree that the poor should lhave fewer kids. However, the pills
work, are cheap, and require a hell of a lot less thought than a 12
week abortion.

Birth control pills require a constant thought, every day, that you
can't screw up and ignore. Miss a couple pills and the girl might be
super fertile. There is also a several percent failure rate among
women who swear they took them right.

Abortion is a one and done.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 19 May 2022 06:52:12 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2022 19:59:13 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2022 17:36:49 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2022 12:07:37 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart >>><me@yourservice.com> wrote:

gfretwell@aol.com Wrote in message:r

On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:>>Aren't you being a little arbitrary when you place a hard and fast>>rule when it is OK to kill a baby? >>What hard and fast rule?Didn't you want to specify a number of weeks? >>>

BTW don't you folks want to shut planned parenthood down? Now you are>>telling us they provide a valuable service. >>It is this flip flopping that makes you seem confused.>>I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never>said
anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of yourcomrades burn them. (google it)

If a woman seeks an abortion, planned parenthood failed her.

Exactly. Perhaps Greg doesn't get it.

I probably get it more than you. I have seen more than my share of >>abortions and shotgun weddings in my life.
Shit happens and when you are talking about young people, lots of shit >>happens.

No not to me (before you ask) I was more careful than most because I
have seen the problem up close. I have never been a "baby daddy".

How many times have you been a 'dead baby daddy'?

Justans' comment is the truth. "If a woman seeks an abortion, planned >parenthood failed her. "

You can't be helped if you don't seek help.
It really sounds like you want a goon squad going around forcing
Norplants in arms or pills down women's throats.

OTOH, maybe forced vasectomies?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 19 May 2022 06:54:02 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2022 20:04:54 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2022 17:41:19 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2022 00:46:54 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:11:19 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2022 23:31:12 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2022 23:15:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill >>>>>><califbill9998remove8@gmail.com> wrote:

John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Sun, 8 May 2022 13:54:20 -0700 (PDT),
"waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the

people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not
by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).
Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the >>>>>>>>>> constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back >>>>>>>>>> to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move. >>>>>>>>>

===

I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over
the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states. >>>>>>>>> Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were
added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by
congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest >>>>>>>>> those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade >>>>>>>>> ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the >>>>>>>>> law of the land and established a "legal precedent" which has >>>>>>>>> traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who
want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very
sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to
impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of >>>>>>>>> how democracy is supposed to work.

Like killing babies?

Does the viable infant get a choice?

It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus >>>>>>>> kicking, right?

Your argument is for a viable baby. Not viable in the first trimester. >>>>>>>Most any abortion these days is an admission of failure. What with all the
birth control methods available.

These late term abortions are so rare the opponents can't usually cite >>>>>>a case but they want folks to think that is the norm.

Yeah, 6200 dead babies are not worth mentioning. Better do some >>>>>reading, Greg.

https://www.liveaction.org/news/cdc-report-later-abortions-often-public-believe/

When I read I prefer the source document, not a book report from a >>>>biased writer.
The 2019 is out now and " (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ >>>>gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at =21 weeks’ " >>>>https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/index.htm

This is not a big issue. Then you need to ask, how many were medically >>>>indicated? (otherwise it is a crime just about everywhere)
Are we supposed to risk the life of the mother or deliver a baby with
a fatal birth defect that will have them suffering for a few months >>>>before they die, if they are lucky.
Find me one documented case of a healthy mother aborting a healthy >>>>child late term. Just one.

Most healthy mothers aborting a healthy late term baby don't advertise >>>the fact.

But here, another source:

"Late-term abortion is, fortunately, relatively rare. According to the >>>most recent CDC data, only 1.3 percent of abortions occur after 21
weeks. However, given the sheer number of abortions in this country >>>(638,169 reported to the CDC), that means there were at least 8,000 >>>late-term abortions in the United States. As Jonah Goldberg notes
today, the pro-abortion-rights Guttmacher Institute puts the number
even higher, at roughly 12,000 late-term abortions per year. That’s a >>>lot of babies dying late in pregnancy. To gain a sense of perspective, >>>that number is comparable to the number of murders committed by
firearms in the same time period."

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/truth-about-late-term-abortions/

That's a lot of babies!

I see some cherry picked "facts" but what I don't see is the medical >>justification for those abortions.

This is mostly hyperbole used to justify banning all abortions. If
you are falling for it, you are part of the problem.

OK, Greg. It's all bullshit. We both know better.

Currently, there is no medical justification required for most
abortions. Perhaps that's why you see none.

"Most" abortions are not late term and I bet the majority of the late
term are deemed medically indicated. Roe never did protect late term
abortion so it could still be prosecuted but I won't let facts get in
the way of a good rant.
You got your wish. Roe is history unless the leak was wrong. Live with
the fallout. You just gave the democrats an issue to run on.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 19 May 2022 11:36:00 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart
<me@yourservice.com> wrote:

John H <jherring@cox.net> Wrote in message:r

On Wed, 18 May 2022 19:46:27 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:>>Is taking a pill a 'wise decision'? Is it more wise than having an>>abortion? >>Yes it is a decision and one they have to consciously make. They need>to go to the effort to get a

prescription, come up with the $10 a>month to pay, then remember to take the pills on
time and in sync.>If they screw up the pills, they can increase the chance of getting>pregnant.>That involves a conscious effort and more than a little wisdom. >Throw a few drugs in the mix and this may be beyond their ability>You're suggesting that
taking one morning after or two abortion pillsis a bigger decision than getting an
abortion. Do you think abortionsare free? The pills may cost $100, now do some reading:Are Abortions Free At Planned Parenthood? Abortion is often sold as the most financially beneficial option forwomen experiencing unplanned pregnancies. Because of that,
we’re oftenasked if abortions are free. The answer is no — abortions are not

freeat Planned Parenthood or other abortion clinics. Each procedure costshundreds, if not thousands, of dollars depending on what stage ofpregnancy the woman is in.>>>>>It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus>>>>kicking,

right?>>>>>>I would rather kill a kicking fetus than have to kill them when they>>>are kicking in my door. >>>>So all babies born to the poor will kick at your door?>>It is a statistical fact. Where is most of the crime and most of the>murders?>The "My door" part was metaphorical but it wasn't always. I lived in>SE DC where
these kind of crimes were more prevalent until I could>afford to get out. I probably knew a lot more people in that>socioeconomic situation than you did. >These are not the most responsible bunch. >>All that said, if they would pop Norplants in those girls in middle>school, I would like to chip in. >Try to get the righteous
right to agree with that. >You may be more progressive than some of your counterparts but

you get>judged by the people you associate with. >>>>Nonsensical comments, Greg.>>Actually not. I only deal with reality. I do agree that the poor should lhave fewer kids. However, the pillswork, are cheap, and require a hell of a lot less thought

than a 12week abortion.

ABORTIONS R US ought to be the official name for PP. Lets call a
spade a spade.

Thank you for being You.

See what I mean John and Justan. It is binary.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 19 May 2022 05:47:40 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com" <3452471@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 4:42:12 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2022 11:40:23 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com"
<345...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 12:33:49 AM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jher...@cox.net> wrote:

I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never >> >> >said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?

If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of your
comrades burn them. (google it)

Your comrades seem to have convinced you that this is a binary issue. It is not. Most folks who believe that abortion should not be legal after the fetus is viable don't consider themselves to be "pro-lifers", and would never dream of burning a PP.

That's just hyperbole on your part. There are certainly extreme views on both sides of this issue. But while the liberal MSM would have you believe otherwise, those people are the exception, not the rule.

Abortion, like guns are issues driven be extremists and they are

happily exploited by politicians to obfuscate the real issues that are
being ignored.

Let me fix that for you:
Abortion, like guns are issues driven by politicians to obfuscate the real issues that they want to ignore.

You wrote, "If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer." So you attempted to pigeon-hole anyone that doesn't believe in abortion up to delivery as a "pro-lifer", and if they don't "attack" PP they are a rare one. That's just false. And binary

thinking.

It is a binary issue with the people who have a problem with the idea
of abortion..

OK quick question.

When is abortion OK?

I will wait for all of you to answer

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 10:52:22 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

On Thu, 19 May 2022 05:47:40 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com" <345...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 4:42:12 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2022 11:40:23 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com"
<345...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 12:33:49 AM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote: >> >> On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jher...@cox.net> wrote:

I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never
said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?

If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of your
comrades burn them. (google it)

Your comrades seem to have convinced you that this is a binary issue. It is not. Most folks who believe that abortion should not be legal after the fetus is viable don't consider themselves to be "pro-lifers", and would never dream of burning a PP.

That's just hyperbole on your part. There are certainly extreme views on both sides of this issue. But while the liberal MSM would have you believe otherwise, those people are the exception, not the rule.

Abortion, like guns are issues driven be extremists and they are >happily exploited by politicians to obfuscate the real issues that are >being ignored.

Let me fix that for you:
Abortion, like guns are issues driven by politicians to obfuscate the real issues that they want to ignore.

You wrote, "If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer." So you attempted to pigeon-hole anyone that doesn't believe in abortion up to delivery as a "pro-lifer", and if they don't "attack" PP they are a rare one. That's just false. And binary

thinking.

It is a binary issue with the people who have a problem with the idea
of abortion.

Wrong. It is not. It is binary thinking to believe that all people that struggle with the idea of abortion think the same.

OK quick question.
When is abortion OK?

Most people that you label "pro-life" believe it is OK for rape, incest, or medical reasons. Most of those also believe it is OK in the first tri. I do.

If you believe the loud fringe that the liberal MSM demonizes as the typical anti-abortion crowd is the norm, they have succeeded in sucking you in. Or maybe you are just a typical pro-abortion person.
:)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

<gfretwell@aol.com> wrote:

On Thu, 19 May 2022 06:52:12 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2022 19:59:13 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2022 17:36:49 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2022 12:07:37 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart
<me@yourservice.com> wrote:

gfretwell@aol.com Wrote in message:r

On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net>
wrote:>>Aren't you being a little arbitrary when you place a hard
and fast>>rule when it is OK to kill a baby? >>What hard and fast
rule?Didn't you want to specify a number of weeks? >>>BTW don't you >>>>>> folks want to shut planned parenthood down? Now you are>>telling us >>>>>> they provide a valuable service. >>It is this flip flopping that
makes you seem confused.>>I know of no one who wants to shut down
planned parenthood. I've never>said anything like that. So, where is >>>>>> the flip flopping?If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of
yourcomrades burn them. (google it)

If a woman seeks an abortion, planned parenthood failed her.

Exactly. Perhaps Greg doesn't get it.

I probably get it more than you. I have seen more than my share of
abortions and shotgun weddings in my life.
Shit happens and when you are talking about young people, lots of shit
happens.

No not to me (before you ask) I was more careful than most because I
have seen the problem up close. I have never been a "baby daddy".

How many times have you been a 'dead baby daddy'?

Justans' comment is the truth. "If a woman seeks an abortion, planned
parenthood failed her. "

You can't be helped if you don't seek help.
It really sounds like you want a goon squad going around forcing
Norplants in arms or pills down women's throats.

OTOH, maybe forced vasectomies?

Maybe a good idea, if you father 2 kids and can’t support them.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 20 May 2022 07:33:42 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com" <3452471@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 10:52:22 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

On Thu, 19 May 2022 05:47:40 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com"
<345...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 4:42:12 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2022 11:40:23 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com"
<345...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 12:33:49 AM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jher...@cox.net> wrote:

I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never
said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?

If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of your
comrades burn them. (google it)

Your comrades seem to have convinced you that this is a binary issue. It is not. Most folks who believe that abortion should not be legal after the fetus is viable don't consider themselves to be "pro-lifers", and would never dream of burning a PP.

That's just hyperbole on your part. There are certainly extreme views on both sides of this issue. But while the liberal MSM would have you believe otherwise, those people are the exception, not the rule.

Abortion, like guns are issues driven be extremists and they are

happily exploited by politicians to obfuscate the real issues that are
being ignored.

Let me fix that for you:
Abortion, like guns are issues driven by politicians to obfuscate the real issues that they want to ignore.

You wrote, "If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer." So you attempted to pigeon-hole anyone that doesn't believe in abortion up to delivery as a "pro-lifer", and if they don't "attack" PP they are a rare one. That's just false. And binary

thinking.

It is a binary issue with the people who have a problem with the idea
of abortion.

Wrong. It is not. It is binary thinking to believe that all people that struggle with the idea of abortion think the same.

OK quick question.
When is abortion OK?

Most people that you label "pro-life" believe it is OK for rape, incest, or medical reasons. Most of those also believe it is OK in the first tri. I do.

If you believe the loud fringe that the liberal MSM demonizes as the typical anti-abortion crowd is the norm, they have succeeded in sucking you in. Or maybe you are just a typical pro-abortion person.
:)

I just listen to what people say.
I am ambivalent about the whole issue myself. It is none of my
business until I get stuck supporting the spawn of irresponsible
people.
Humans are not an endangered species.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, 29 May 2022 at 20:43:55 UTC-3, John H wrote:

On Thu, 19 May 2022 22:29:10 -0400, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

On Thu, 19 May 2022 06:46:15 -0400, John H <jher...@cox.net> wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2022 19:46:27 -0400, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

Is taking a pill a 'wise decision'? Is it more wise than having an >>>>abortion?

Yes it is a decision and one they have to consciously make. They need >>>to go to the effort to get a prescription, come up with the $10 a >>>month to pay, then remember to take the pills on time and in sync.
If they screw up the pills, they can increase the chance of getting >>>pregnant.
That involves a conscious effort and more than a little wisdom.
Throw a few drugs in the mix and this may be beyond their ability

You're suggesting that taking one morning after or two abortion pills
is a bigger decision than getting an abortion. Do you think abortions >>are free? The pills may cost $100, now do some reading:

Are Abortions Free At Planned Parenthood?
Abortion is often sold as the most financially beneficial option for >>women experiencing unplanned pregnancies. Because of that, we’re often >>asked if abortions are free. The answer is no — abortions are not free >>at Planned Parenthood or other abortion clinics. Each procedure costs >>hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars depending on what stage of >>pregnancy the woman is in.

What part of irresponsible are you confused about?
You are extending your privileged white boy thinking onto a society
that isn't.
BTW I am sure lots of abortions get dumped back on the public dime
somehow and there should be more. It is the most efficient use of the >money unless you are using mandatory implants.

Sell that.

It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus >>>>>>kicking, right?

I would rather kill a kicking fetus than have to kill them when they >>>>>are kicking in my door.

So all babies born to the poor will kick at your door?

It is a statistical fact. Where is most of the crime and most of the >>>murders?
The "My door" part was metaphorical but it wasn't always. I lived in >>>SE DC where these kind of crimes were more prevalent until I could >>>afford to get out. I probably knew a lot more people in that >>>socioeconomic situation than you did.
These are not the most responsible bunch.

All that said, if they would pop Norplants in those girls in middle >>>school, I would like to chip in.
Try to get the righteous right to agree with that.
You may be more progressive than some of your counterparts but you get >>>judged by the people you associate with.

Nonsensical comments, Greg.

Actually not. I only deal with reality.

I do agree that the poor should lhave fewer kids. However, the pills >>work, are cheap, and require a hell of a lot less thought than a 12
week abortion.

Birth control pills require a constant thought, every day, that you
can't screw up and ignore. Miss a couple pills and the girl might be
super fertile. There is also a several percent failure rate among
women who swear they took them right.

Abortion is a one and done.

Either you can't read, or you simply choose to ignore fucking facts.

The 'morning after' pill is ONE fucking pill. The abortion pills are
TWO fucking pills.

Wake the fuck up.

What the 'ell!
You going batshit crazy on us Johnny?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 19 May 2022 22:29:10 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Thu, 19 May 2022 06:46:15 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2022 19:46:27 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

Is taking a pill a 'wise decision'? Is it more wise than having an >>>>abortion?

Yes it is a decision and one they have to consciously make. They need
to go to the effort to get a prescription, come up with the $10 a
month to pay, then remember to take the pills on time and in sync.
If they screw up the pills, they can increase the chance of getting >>>pregnant.
That involves a conscious effort and more than a little wisdom.
Throw a few drugs in the mix and this may be beyond their ability

You're suggesting that taking one morning after or two abortion pills
is a bigger decision than getting an abortion. Do you think abortions
are free? The pills may cost $100, now do some reading:

Are Abortions Free At Planned Parenthood?
Abortion is often sold as the most financially beneficial option for
women experiencing unplanned pregnancies. Because of that, we’re often >>asked if abortions are free. The answer is no — abortions are not free
at Planned Parenthood or other abortion clinics. Each procedure costs >>hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars depending on what stage of
pregnancy the woman is in.

What part of irresponsible are you confused about?
You are extending your privileged white boy thinking onto a society
that isn't.
BTW I am sure lots of abortions get dumped back on the public dime
somehow and there should be more. It is the most efficient use of the
money unless you are using mandatory implants.

Sell that.

It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus >>>>>>kicking, right?

I would rather kill a kicking fetus than have to kill them when they >>>>>are kicking in my door.

So all babies born to the poor will kick at your door?

It is a statistical fact. Where is most of the crime and most of the >>>murders?
The "My door" part was metaphorical but it wasn't always. I lived in
SE DC where these kind of crimes were more prevalent until I could >>>afford to get out. I probably knew a lot more people in that >>>socioeconomic situation than you did.
These are not the most responsible bunch.

All that said, if they would pop Norplants in those girls in middle >>>school, I would like to chip in.
Try to get the righteous right to agree with that.
You may be more progressive than some of your counterparts but you get >>>judged by the people you associate with.

Nonsensical comments, Greg.

Actually not. I only deal with reality.

I do agree that the poor should lhave fewer kids. However, the pills
work, are cheap, and require a hell of a lot less thought than a 12
week abortion.

Birth control pills require a constant thought, every day, that you
can't screw up and ignore. Miss a couple pills and the girl might be
super fertile. There is also a several percent failure rate among
women who swear they took them right.

Abortion is a one and done.

Either you can't read, or you simply choose to ignore fucking facts.

The 'morning after' pill is ONE fucking pill. The abortion pills are
TWO fucking pills.

Wake the fuck up.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 19 May 2022 22:35:38 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Thu, 19 May 2022 06:52:12 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2022 19:59:13 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2022 17:36:49 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2022 12:07:37 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart >>>><me@yourservice.com> wrote:

gfretwell@aol.com Wrote in message:r

On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:>>Aren't you being a little arbitrary when you place a hard and fast>>rule when it is OK to kill a baby? >>What hard and fast rule?Didn't you want to specify a number of weeks? >>>

BTW don't you folks want to shut planned parenthood down? Now you are>>telling us they provide a valuable service. >>It is this flip flopping that makes you seem confused.>>I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never>said
anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of yourcomrades burn them. (google it)

If a woman seeks an abortion, planned parenthood failed her.

Exactly. Perhaps Greg doesn't get it.

I probably get it more than you. I have seen more than my share of >>>abortions and shotgun weddings in my life.
Shit happens and when you are talking about young people, lots of shit >>>happens.

No not to me (before you ask) I was more careful than most because I
have seen the problem up close. I have never been a "baby daddy".

How many times have you been a 'dead baby daddy'?

Justans' comment is the truth. "If a woman seeks an abortion, planned >>parenthood failed her. "

You can't be helped if you don't seek help.
It really sounds like you want a goon squad going around forcing
Norplants in arms or pills down women's throats.

OTOH, maybe forced vasectomies?

You totally missed that point, didn't you?

Your shit sounds more and more like Harry's every day!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 19 May 2022 22:44:05 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Thu, 19 May 2022 06:54:02 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2022 20:04:54 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2022 17:41:19 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2022 00:46:54 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:11:19 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2022 23:31:12 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2022 23:15:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill >>>>>>><califbill9998remove8@gmail.com> wrote:

John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Sun, 8 May 2022 13:54:20 -0700 (PDT),
"waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the

people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not
by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about). >>>>>>>>>>> Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the >>>>>>>>>>> constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back
to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move. >>>>>>>>>>

===

I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over
the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states. >>>>>>>>>> Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were
added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by
congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest >>>>>>>>>> those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade >>>>>>>>>> ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the
law of the land and established a "legal precedent" which has >>>>>>>>>> traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who
want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very
sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to
impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of
how democracy is supposed to work.

Like killing babies?

Does the viable infant get a choice?

It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus >>>>>>>>> kicking, right?

Your argument is for a viable baby. Not viable in the first trimester.
Most any abortion these days is an admission of failure. What with all the
birth control methods available.

These late term abortions are so rare the opponents can't usually cite >>>>>>>a case but they want folks to think that is the norm.

Yeah, 6200 dead babies are not worth mentioning. Better do some >>>>>>reading, Greg.

https://www.liveaction.org/news/cdc-report-later-abortions-often-public-believe/

When I read I prefer the source document, not a book report from a >>>>>biased writer.
The 2019 is out now and " (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ >>>>>gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at =21 weeks’ " >>>>>https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/index.htm

This is not a big issue. Then you need to ask, how many were medically >>>>>indicated? (otherwise it is a crime just about everywhere)
Are we supposed to risk the life of the mother or deliver a baby with >>>>>a fatal birth defect that will have them suffering for a few months >>>>>before they die, if they are lucky.
Find me one documented case of a healthy mother aborting a healthy >>>>>child late term. Just one.

Most healthy mothers aborting a healthy late term baby don't advertise >>>>the fact.

But here, another source:

"Late-term abortion is, fortunately, relatively rare. According to the >>>>most recent CDC data, only 1.3 percent of abortions occur after 21 >>>>weeks. However, given the sheer number of abortions in this country >>>>(638,169 reported to the CDC), that means there were at least 8,000 >>>>late-term abortions in the United States. As Jonah Goldberg notes >>>>today, the pro-abortion-rights Guttmacher Institute puts the number >>>>even higher, at roughly 12,000 late-term abortions per year. That’s a >>>>lot of babies dying late in pregnancy. To gain a sense of perspective, >>>>that number is comparable to the number of murders committed by >>>>firearms in the same time period."

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/truth-about-late-term-abortions/

That's a lot of babies!

I see some cherry picked "facts" but what I don't see is the medical >>>justification for those abortions.

This is mostly hyperbole used to justify banning all abortions. If
you are falling for it, you are part of the problem.

OK, Greg. It's all bullshit. We both know better.

Currently, there is no medical justification required for most
abortions. Perhaps that's why you see none.

"Most" abortions are not late term and I bet the majority of the late
term are deemed medically indicated. Roe never did protect late term
abortion so it could still be prosecuted but I won't let facts get in
the way of a good rant.
You got your wish. Roe is history unless the leak was wrong. Live with
the fallout. You just gave the democrats an issue to run on.

I gave no one anything.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 19 May 2022 22:32:44 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Thu, 19 May 2022 06:50:22 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2022 19:55:22 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2022 17:36:20 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2022 00:33:37 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

Aren't you being a little arbitrary when you place a hard and fast >>>>>>>rule when it is OK to kill a baby?

What hard and fast rule?

Didn't you want to specify a number of weeks?

BTW don't you folks want to shut planned parenthood down? Now you are >>>>>>>telling us they provide a valuable service.
It is this flip flopping that makes you seem confused.

I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never >>>>>>said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?

If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of your >>>>>comrades burn them. (google it)

I don't attack PP. I may attack all the abortions they perform.

You just have to understand this is a total process. We need to try to >>>prevent pregnancy but once it happens there needs to be another plan. >>>That is why the morning after pill is called "Plan B".
Unfortunately I doubt women want to slam one of them every time they
have sex.
Levonorgestrel is not without side effects.

More common
Heavy or light menstrual bleeding
Abdominal or stomach pain
dizziness
headache
nausea
tenderness of the breasts
unusual tiredness or weakness
vomiting

Less common

Diarrhea
Absent missed or irregular menstrual periods
cramps
Irregular menstruation
Pain
Pain in the pelvis
Stopping of menstrual bleeding

How many of those would a woman want, just in case?

Do some reading on the possible side effects of abortion - both short
and long term: >>https://www.glozine.com/lifestyle/side-effects-of-abortion-8-risks-on-body-after-abortions.html

Gosh!

I see your "risk of abortion" and raise you the risk of pregnancy. >https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/pregnancy-complications.html

Maybe we should just tell women to stop having sex. Maybe just be
lesbians.
Problem solved.

Unprotected, maybe? Your 'risk of pregnancy' means women should not
get pregnant. Pretty easy.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 29 May 2022 19:43:52 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Thu, 19 May 2022 22:29:10 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Thu, 19 May 2022 06:46:15 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2022 19:46:27 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

Is taking a pill a 'wise decision'? Is it more wise than having an >>>>>abortion?

Yes it is a decision and one they have to consciously make. They need >>>>to go to the effort to get a prescription, come up with the $10 a
month to pay, then remember to take the pills on time and in sync.
If they screw up the pills, they can increase the chance of getting >>>>pregnant.
That involves a conscious effort and more than a little wisdom.
Throw a few drugs in the mix and this may be beyond their ability

You're suggesting that taking one morning after or two abortion pills
is a bigger decision than getting an abortion. Do you think abortions
are free? The pills may cost $100, now do some reading:

Are Abortions Free At Planned Parenthood?
Abortion is often sold as the most financially beneficial option for >>>women experiencing unplanned pregnancies. Because of that, we’re often >>>asked if abortions are free. The answer is no — abortions are not free >>>at Planned Parenthood or other abortion clinics. Each procedure costs >>>hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars depending on what stage of >>>pregnancy the woman is in.

What part of irresponsible are you confused about?
You are extending your privileged white boy thinking onto a society
that isn't.
BTW I am sure lots of abortions get dumped back on the public dime
somehow and there should be more. It is the most efficient use of the
money unless you are using mandatory implants.

Sell that.

It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus >>>>>>>kicking, right?

I would rather kill a kicking fetus than have to kill them when they >>>>>>are kicking in my door.

So all babies born to the poor will kick at your door?

It is a statistical fact. Where is most of the crime and most of the >>>>murders?
The "My door" part was metaphorical but it wasn't always. I lived in
SE DC where these kind of crimes were more prevalent until I could >>>>afford to get out. I probably knew a lot more people in that >>>>socioeconomic situation than you did.
These are not the most responsible bunch.

All that said, if they would pop Norplants in those girls in middle >>>>school, I would like to chip in.
Try to get the righteous right to agree with that.
You may be more progressive than some of your counterparts but you get >>>>judged by the people you associate with.

Nonsensical comments, Greg.

Actually not. I only deal with reality.

I do agree that the poor should lhave fewer kids. However, the pills >>>work, are cheap, and require a hell of a lot less thought than a 12
week abortion.

Birth control pills require a constant thought, every day, that you
can't screw up and ignore. Miss a couple pills and the girl might be
super fertile. There is also a several percent failure rate among
women who swear they took them right.

Abortion is a one and done.

Either you can't read, or you simply choose to ignore fucking facts.

The 'morning after' pill is ONE fucking pill. The abortion pills are
TWO fucking pills.

Wake the fuck up.

They are still abortions in the eyes of right to life people but they
also have to be taken before you know you are pregnant. Are you saying
a woman should be taking one (or two) every time she has sex with all
of the side effects?
https://www.drugs.com/sfx/morning-after-side-effects.html

How long will the average person do that?

Then there is the cost, these things aren't cheap. I know you are rich
but a lot of girls can't cough up $35-70 on a moments notice and hours
count.
The non-prescripton one is not always effective with "Big" girls

26BMI)

The one that does work better is prescription only ... add another
$100-200 to the cost, assuming you can get an appointment in less
than 72 hours.

I just think rich old white men should not be telling women what to do
with their uterus. When you grow one, you have a vote.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 20 May 2022 17:17:42 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Fri, 20 May 2022 07:33:42 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com" ><3452471@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 10:52:22 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

On Thu, 19 May 2022 05:47:40 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com"
<345...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 4:42:12 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2022 11:40:23 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com"
<345...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 12:33:49 AM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote: >>> >> >> On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jher...@cox.net> wrote: >>> >> >

I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never
said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?

If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of your
comrades burn them. (google it)

Your comrades seem to have convinced you that this is a binary issue. It is not. Most folks who believe that abortion should not be legal after the fetus is viable don't consider themselves to be "pro-lifers", and would never dream of burning a

PP. That's just hyperbole on your part. There are certainly extreme views on both sides of this issue. But while the liberal MSM would have you believe otherwise, those people are the exception, not the rule.

Abortion, like guns are issues driven be extremists and they are

happily exploited by politicians to obfuscate the real issues that are
being ignored.

Let me fix that for you:
Abortion, like guns are issues driven by politicians to obfuscate the real issues that they want to ignore.

You wrote, "If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer." So you attempted to pigeon-hole anyone that doesn't believe in abortion up to delivery as a "pro-lifer", and if they don't "attack" PP they are a rare one. That's just false. And binary

thinking.

It is a binary issue with the people who have a problem with the idea
of abortion.

Wrong. It is not. It is binary thinking to believe that all people that struggle with the idea of abortion think the same.

OK quick question.
When is abortion OK?

Most people that you label "pro-life" believe it is OK for rape, incest, or medical reasons. Most of those also believe it is OK in the first tri. I do.

If you believe the loud fringe that the liberal MSM demonizes as the typical anti-abortion crowd is the norm, they have succeeded in sucking you in. Or maybe you are just a typical pro-abortion person.
:)

I just listen to what people say.
I am ambivalent about the whole issue myself. It is none of my
business until I get stuck supporting the spawn of irresponsible
people.
Humans are not an endangered species.

Your ambivalence sucks, or that statement is bullshit. Take your pick.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 19 May 2022 22:52:04 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Thu, 19 May 2022 05:47:40 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com" ><3452471@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 4:42:12 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2022 11:40:23 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com"
<345...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 12:33:49 AM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote: >>> >> On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jher...@cox.net> wrote:

I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never >>> >> >said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?

If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of your
comrades burn them. (google it)

Your comrades seem to have convinced you that this is a binary issue. It is not. Most folks who believe that abortion should not be legal after the fetus is viable don't consider themselves to be "pro-lifers", and would never dream of burning a PP.

That's just hyperbole on your part. There are certainly extreme views on both sides of this issue. But while the liberal MSM would have you believe otherwise, those people are the exception, not the rule.

Abortion, like guns are issues driven be extremists and they are >>happily exploited by politicians to obfuscate the real issues that are >>being ignored.

Let me fix that for you:
Abortion, like guns are issues driven by politicians to obfuscate the real issues that they want to ignore.

You wrote, "If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer." So you attempted to pigeon-hole anyone that doesn't believe in abortion up to delivery as a "pro-lifer", and if they don't "attack" PP they are a rare one. That's just false. And binary

thinking.

It is a binary issue with the people who have a problem with the idea
of abortion..

OK quick question.

When is abortion OK?

I will wait for all of you to answer

If I were still a staunch Catholic, I would have to say, "Never."
However, I have reached a compromise. I can live with the morning
after pill (note: that's ONE f'ing pill), the abortion pills (TWO
f'ing pills) or a first trimester abortion in the case of rape or
incest. That last one is a real compromise.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 30 May 2022 06:28:19 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Fri, 20 May 2022 17:17:42 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Fri, 20 May 2022 07:33:42 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com" >><3452471@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 10:52:22 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

On Thu, 19 May 2022 05:47:40 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com"
<345...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 4:42:12 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote: >>>> >> On Wed, 18 May 2022 11:40:23 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com"

<345...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 12:33:49 AM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jher...@cox.net> wrote: >>>> >> >

I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never
said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?

If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of your
comrades burn them. (google it)

Your comrades seem to have convinced you that this is a binary issue. It is not. Most folks who believe that abortion should not be legal after the fetus is viable don't consider themselves to be "pro-lifers", and would never dream of burning a

PP. That's just hyperbole on your part. There are certainly extreme views on both sides of this issue. But while the liberal MSM would have you believe otherwise, those people are the exception, not the rule.

Abortion, like guns are issues driven be extremists and they are >>>> >happily exploited by politicians to obfuscate the real issues that are >>>> >being ignored.

Let me fix that for you:
Abortion, like guns are issues driven by politicians to obfuscate the real issues that they want to ignore.

You wrote, "If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer." So you attempted to pigeon-hole anyone that doesn't believe in abortion up to delivery as a "pro-lifer", and if they don't "attack" PP they are a rare one. That's just false. And binary

thinking.

It is a binary issue with the people who have a problem with the idea
of abortion.

Wrong. It is not. It is binary thinking to believe that all people that struggle with the idea of abortion think the same.

OK quick question.
When is abortion OK?

Most people that you label "pro-life" believe it is OK for rape, incest, or medical reasons. Most of those also believe it is OK in the first tri. I do.

If you believe the loud fringe that the liberal MSM demonizes as the typical anti-abortion crowd is the norm, they have succeeded in sucking you in. Or maybe you are just a typical pro-abortion person.
:)

I just listen to what people say.
I am ambivalent about the whole issue myself. It is none of my
business until I get stuck supporting the spawn of irresponsible
people.
Humans are not an endangered species.

Your ambivalence sucks, or that statement is bullshit. Take your pick.

OK I am on the side that it is none of my business, nor yours, since
you don't have ovaries.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 30 May 2022 06:27:09 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Thu, 19 May 2022 22:52:04 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Thu, 19 May 2022 05:47:40 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com" >><3452471@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 4:42:12 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2022 11:40:23 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com"
<345...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 12:33:49 AM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote: >>>> >> On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jher...@cox.net> wrote: >>>> >

I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never >>>> >> >said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?

If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of your
comrades burn them. (google it)

Your comrades seem to have convinced you that this is a binary issue. It is not. Most folks who believe that abortion should not be legal after the fetus is viable don't consider themselves to be "pro-lifers", and would never dream of burning a PP.

That's just hyperbole on your part. There are certainly extreme views on both sides of this issue. But while the liberal MSM would have you believe otherwise, those people are the exception, not the rule.

Abortion, like guns are issues driven be extremists and they are >>>happily exploited by politicians to obfuscate the real issues that are >>>being ignored.

Let me fix that for you:
Abortion, like guns are issues driven by politicians to obfuscate the real issues that they want to ignore.

You wrote, "If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer." So you attempted to pigeon-hole anyone that doesn't believe in abortion up to delivery as a "pro-lifer", and if they don't "attack" PP they are a rare one. That's just false. And binary

thinking.

It is a binary issue with the people who have a problem with the idea
of abortion..

OK quick question.

When is abortion OK?

I will wait for all of you to answer

If I were still a staunch Catholic, I would have to say, "Never."
However, I have reached a compromise. I can live with the morning
after pill (note: that's ONE f'ing pill), the abortion pills (TWO
f'ing pills) or a first trimester abortion in the case of rape or
incest. That last one is a real compromise.

Not much compromise there.
The pill you talk about is only effective if you take it before you
think you might be pregnant. If you are Paris Hilton and $70 means
nothing to you. go ahead and take one every time you have sex but that
is unrealistic unless you decide the government will just have them in
every ladies room for free. No doctor's visit or prescription would be
needed.

Maybe the government should tax right to lifers for the extra burden
unwanted children put on our society. (welfare payments, crime and the
cost of prisons)
It reminds me of the PETA people who want to ban hunting but they are
not willing to replace the money hunters pay into wildlife management
programs.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

<gfretwell@aol.com> wrote:

On Mon, 30 May 2022 06:28:19 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Fri, 20 May 2022 17:17:42 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Fri, 20 May 2022 07:33:42 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com"
<3452471@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 10:52:22 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 19 May 2022 05:47:40 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com"

<345...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 4:42:12 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, 18 May 2022 11:40:23 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com"

<345...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 12:33:49 AM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jher...@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>

I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never
said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?

If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of your >>>>>>>>> comrades burn them. (google it)

Your comrades seem to have convinced you that this is a binary >>>>>>>> issue. It is not. Most folks who believe that abortion should not >>>>>>>> be legal after the fetus is viable don't consider themselves to be >>>>>>>> "pro-lifers", and would never dream of burning a PP. That's just >>>>>>>> hyperbole on your part. There are certainly extreme views on both >>>>>>>> sides of this issue. But while the liberal MSM would have you
believe otherwise, those people are the exception, not the rule. >>>>>>

Abortion, like guns are issues driven be extremists and they are >>>>>> happily exploited by politicians to obfuscate the real issues that are >>>>>> being ignored.

Let me fix that for you:
Abortion, like guns are issues driven by politicians to obfuscate
the real issues that they want to ignore.

You wrote, "If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer." So
you attempted to pigeon-hole anyone that doesn't believe in abortion >>>>>> up to delivery as a "pro-lifer", and if they don't "attack" PP they >>>>>> are a rare one. That's just false. And binary thinking.

It is a binary issue with the people who have a problem with the idea >>>>> of abortion.

Wrong. It is not. It is binary thinking to believe that all people
that struggle with the idea of abortion think the same.

OK quick question.
When is abortion OK?

Most people that you label "pro-life" believe it is OK for rape,
incest, or medical reasons. Most of those also believe it is OK in
the first tri. I do.

If you believe the loud fringe that the liberal MSM demonizes as the
typical anti-abortion crowd is the norm, they have succeeded in
sucking you in. Or maybe you are just a typical pro-abortion person.
:)

I just listen to what people say.
I am ambivalent about the whole issue myself. It is none of my
business until I get stuck supporting the spawn of irresponsible
people.
Humans are not an endangered species.

Your ambivalence sucks, or that statement is bullshit. Take your pick.

OK I am on the side that it is none of my business, nor yours, since
you don't have ovaries.

:)

--
Lock Trump Up

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 30 May 2022 15:26:45 -0000 (UTC), Keyser Soze <keysersoze@whitehouse.com> wrote:

Lock Trump Up

It is starting to look like Hunter may end up in the dock before Trump
and the Sussman trial isn't making Hillary look so good either.
It turns out the "Russian collusion" and the "Pee Tapes" were just
made up and nobody "in the know" in the government (FBI/CIA) really
believed it.
It made Democrat nipples hard and CNN/MSNBC milked it for all it was
worth. You folks gobbled it up.
I voted for Jo J. so I don't have a dog in that fight. .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 5/30/22 12:34 PM, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Mon, 30 May 2022 15:26:45 -0000 (UTC), Keyser Soze <keysersoze@whitehouse.com> wrote:

Lock Trump Up

It is starting to look like Hunter may end up in the dock before Trump
and the Sussman trial isn't making Hillary look so good either.
It turns out the "Russian collusion" and the "Pee Tapes" were just
made up and nobody "in the know" in the government (FBI/CIA) really
believed it.
It made Democrat nipples hard and CNN/MSNBC milked it for all it was
worth. You folks gobbled it up.
I voted for Jo J. so I don't have a dog in that fight. .

My only interest in Trump these days is that he continues to demonstrate
he is great at making a horse's ass of himself and the morons that
follow him continue to do so.

Meanwhile, we continue to look for a retirement town. K reaches full
private pension retirement age this year, but she likely will stay
another year. After eliminating Hilton Head, we checked out Pooler, a
real nice suburb of Savannah, but it was "too suburban" for our taste.
We're kind of thinking of the area between St. Augustine and
Jacksonville. Lots of medical facilities, which K needs for her
practice, tons of restaurants, shopping, and, of course, terrific
beaches and some seasonality. Plus, for the moment, at least, the crazy right-wingers no longer rule the roost in all of NE Florida politically.
We'll see.

--
* Lock up Trump and his family of grifters. *

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 1:20:57 PM UTC-4, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 5/30/22 12:34 PM, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

On Mon, 30 May 2022 15:26:45 -0000 (UTC), Keyser Soze <keyse...@whitehouse.com> wrote:

Lock Trump Up

It is starting to look like Hunter may end up in the dock before Trump
and the Sussman trial isn't making Hillary look so good either.
It turns out the "Russian collusion" and the "Pee Tapes" were just
made up and nobody "in the know" in the government (FBI/CIA) really believed it.
It made Democrat nipples hard and CNN/MSNBC milked it for all it was worth. You folks gobbled it up.
I voted for Jo J. so I don't have a dog in that fight. .

My only interest in Trump these days is that he continues to demonstrate
he is great at making a horse's ass of himself and the morons that
follow him continue to do so.

Meanwhile, we continue to look for a retirement town. K reaches full
private pension retirement age this year, but she likely will stay
another year. After eliminating Hilton Head, we checked out Pooler, a
real nice suburb of Savannah, but it was "too suburban" for our taste.
We're kind of thinking of the area between St. Augustine and
Jacksonville. Lots of medical facilities, which K needs for her
practice, tons of restaurants, shopping, and, of course, terrific
beaches and some seasonality. Plus, for the moment, at least, the crazy right-wingers no longer rule the roost in all of NE Florida politically. We'll see.

--
* Lock up Trump and his family of grifters. *

===

My youngest son's in-laws found the area around Jacksonville too cold for them in the winter so they sold their very nice condo on the beach and moved farther south to the St Lucie area. Going north, we have a number of friends who have found happiness
in an area called Fairfield Harbour, NC. It is on the Neuse River very close to New Bern. Also in NC is a development called St James. It is right off the ICW and an easy drive to Wilmington. We have a friend who lives there and it is a very pleasant
locale with a lot of amenities.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 30 May 2022 13:20:53 -0400, Keyser Söze
<KeyserSöze@whitehouse.com> wrote:

On 5/30/22 12:34 PM, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Mon, 30 May 2022 15:26:45 -0000 (UTC), Keyser Soze
<keysersoze@whitehouse.com> wrote:

Lock Trump Up

It is starting to look like Hunter may end up in the dock before Trump
and the Sussman trial isn't making Hillary look so good either.
It turns out the "Russian collusion" and the "Pee Tapes" were just
made up and nobody "in the know" in the government (FBI/CIA) really
believed it.
It made Democrat nipples hard and CNN/MSNBC milked it for all it was
worth. You folks gobbled it up.
I voted for Jo J. so I don't have a dog in that fight. .

My only interest in Trump these days is that he continues to demonstrate
he is great at making a horse's ass of himself and the morons that
follow him continue to do so.

I think Trump is pretty much history. His candidates took a good
beating in the primaries so far.

Meanwhile, we continue to look for a retirement town. K reaches full
private pension retirement age this year, but she likely will stay
another year. After eliminating Hilton Head, we checked out Pooler, a
real nice suburb of Savannah, but it was "too suburban" for our taste.
We're kind of thinking of the area between St. Augustine and
Jacksonville. Lots of medical facilities, which K needs for her
practice, tons of restaurants, shopping, and, of course, terrific
beaches and some seasonality. Plus, for the moment, at least, the crazy >right-wingers no longer rule the roost in all of NE Florida politically. >We'll see.

It just depends on where you are. The farther you get out of the urban
area the redder it gets.
We just got back from the Georgia mountains. (Young Harris). If I was
going to have a place "up north" it would be in the mountains but I
want to be back here before it starts snowing. I really like it better
out west tho. We really like Montana and Western Wyoming near Idaho. I
am just not rich enough to do both. Property out there is seeing the
same silly prices as they are here.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

<gfretwell@aol.com> wrote:

On Mon, 30 May 2022 13:20:53 -0400, Keyser Söze <KeyserSöze@whitehouse.com> wrote:

On 5/30/22 12:34 PM, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Mon, 30 May 2022 15:26:45 -0000 (UTC), Keyser Soze
<keysersoze@whitehouse.com> wrote:

Lock Trump Up

It is starting to look like Hunter may end up in the dock before Trump
and the Sussman trial isn't making Hillary look so good either.
It turns out the "Russian collusion" and the "Pee Tapes" were just
made up and nobody "in the know" in the government (FBI/CIA) really
believed it.
It made Democrat nipples hard and CNN/MSNBC milked it for all it was
worth. You folks gobbled it up.
I voted for Jo J. so I don't have a dog in that fight. .

My only interest in Trump these days is that he continues to demonstrate
he is great at making a horse's ass of himself and the morons that
follow him continue to do so.

I think Trump is pretty much history. His candidates took a good
beating in the primaries so far.

Meanwhile, we continue to look for a retirement town. K reaches full
private pension retirement age this year, but she likely will stay
another year. After eliminating Hilton Head, we checked out Pooler, a
real nice suburb of Savannah, but it was "too suburban" for our taste.
We're kind of thinking of the area between St. Augustine and
Jacksonville. Lots of medical facilities, which K needs for her
practice, tons of restaurants, shopping, and, of course, terrific
beaches and some seasonality. Plus, for the moment, at least, the crazy
right-wingers no longer rule the roost in all of NE Florida politically.
We'll see.

It just depends on where you are. The farther you get out of the urban
area the redder it gets.
We just got back from the Georgia mountains. (Young Harris). If I was
going to have a place "up north" it would be in the mountains but I
want to be back here before it starts snowing. I really like it better
out west tho. We really like Montana and Western Wyoming near Idaho. I
am just not rich enough to do both. Property out there is seeing the
same silly prices as they are here.

Wife’s auntie lives in the western NC mountains. She’s my favorite in-law and the mountains are nice, but I like to be near the ocean or at least a saltwater bay.

--
Lock Trump Up

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 30 May 2022 10:24:15 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Mon, 30 May 2022 06:27:09 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Thu, 19 May 2022 22:52:04 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Thu, 19 May 2022 05:47:40 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com" >>><3452471@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 4:42:12 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 18 May 2022 11:40:23 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com"

<345...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 12:33:49 AM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote: >>>>> >> On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jher...@cox.net> wrote: >>>>> >

I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never
said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?

If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of your
comrades burn them. (google it)

Your comrades seem to have convinced you that this is a binary issue. It is not. Most folks who believe that abortion should not be legal after the fetus is viable don't consider themselves to be "pro-lifers", and would never dream of burning a PP.

That's just hyperbole on your part. There are certainly extreme views on both sides of this issue. But while the liberal MSM would have you believe otherwise, those people are the exception, not the rule.

Abortion, like guns are issues driven be extremists and they are >>>>happily exploited by politicians to obfuscate the real issues that are >>>>being ignored.

Let me fix that for you:
Abortion, like guns are issues driven by politicians to obfuscate the real issues that they want to ignore.

You wrote, "If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer." So you attempted to pigeon-hole anyone that doesn't believe in abortion up to delivery as a "pro-lifer", and if they don't "attack" PP they are a rare one. That's just false. And

binary thinking.

It is a binary issue with the people who have a problem with the idea
of abortion..

OK quick question.

When is abortion OK?

I will wait for all of you to answer

If I were still a staunch Catholic, I would have to say, "Never."
However, I have reached a compromise. I can live with the morning
after pill (note: that's ONE f'ing pill), the abortion pills (TWO
f'ing pills) or a first trimester abortion in the case of rape or
incest. That last one is a real compromise.

Not much compromise there.
The pill you talk about is only effective if you take it before you
think you might be pregnant.

More bullshit. I talked about two pills. One works out to 10 weeks.

If you are Paris Hilton and $70 means
nothing to you. go ahead and take one every time you have sex but that
is unrealistic unless you decide the government will just have them in
every ladies room for free. No doctor's visit or prescription would be >needed.

Please tell me where abortions cost less than $70.

Maybe the government should tax right to lifers for the extra burden
unwanted children put on our society. (welfare payments, crime and the
cost of prisons)

Why? There are plenty of alternatives to prevent the birth of those
'unwanted children'.

It reminds me of the PETA people who want to ban hunting but they are
not willing to replace the money hunters pay into wildlife management >programs.

Your arguments show a wandering mind!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 29 May 2022 17:09:34 -0700 (PDT), True North
<princecraft49@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, 29 May 2022 at 20:43:55 UTC-3, John H wrote:

On Thu, 19 May 2022 22:29:10 -0400, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

On Thu, 19 May 2022 06:46:15 -0400, John H <jher...@cox.net> wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2022 19:46:27 -0400, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

Is taking a pill a 'wise decision'? Is it more wise than having an
abortion?

Yes it is a decision and one they have to consciously make. They need
to go to the effort to get a prescription, come up with the $10 a
month to pay, then remember to take the pills on time and in sync.
If they screw up the pills, they can increase the chance of getting
pregnant.
That involves a conscious effort and more than a little wisdom.
Throw a few drugs in the mix and this may be beyond their ability

You're suggesting that taking one morning after or two abortion pills
is a bigger decision than getting an abortion. Do you think abortions
are free? The pills may cost $100, now do some reading:

Are Abortions Free At Planned Parenthood?
Abortion is often sold as the most financially beneficial option for
women experiencing unplanned pregnancies. Because of that, we’re often
asked if abortions are free. The answer is no — abortions are not free
at Planned Parenthood or other abortion clinics. Each procedure costs
hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars depending on what stage of
pregnancy the woman is in.

What part of irresponsible are you confused about?
You are extending your privileged white boy thinking onto a society
that isn't.
BTW I am sure lots of abortions get dumped back on the public dime
somehow and there should be more. It is the most efficient use of the
money unless you are using mandatory implants.

Sell that.

It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus >> >>>>>>kicking, right?

I would rather kill a kicking fetus than have to kill them when they
are kicking in my door.

So all babies born to the poor will kick at your door?

It is a statistical fact. Where is most of the crime and most of the
murders?
The "My door" part was metaphorical but it wasn't always. I lived in
SE DC where these kind of crimes were more prevalent until I could
afford to get out. I probably knew a lot more people in that
socioeconomic situation than you did.
These are not the most responsible bunch.

All that said, if they would pop Norplants in those girls in middle
school, I would like to chip in.
Try to get the righteous right to agree with that.
You may be more progressive than some of your counterparts but you get
judged by the people you associate with.

Nonsensical comments, Greg.

Actually not. I only deal with reality.

I do agree that the poor should lhave fewer kids. However, the pills
work, are cheap, and require a hell of a lot less thought than a 12
week abortion.

Birth control pills require a constant thought, every day, that you
can't screw up and ignore. Miss a couple pills and the girl might be
super fertile. There is also a several percent failure rate among
women who swear they took them right.

Abortion is a one and done.

Either you can't read, or you simply choose to ignore fucking facts.

The 'morning after' pill is ONE fucking pill. The abortion pills are
TWO fucking pills.

Wake the fuck up.

What the 'ell!
You going batshit crazy on us Johnny?

Something you didn't understand there?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 29 May 2022 22:14:26 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Sun, 29 May 2022 19:43:52 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Thu, 19 May 2022 22:29:10 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Thu, 19 May 2022 06:46:15 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2022 19:46:27 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

Is taking a pill a 'wise decision'? Is it more wise than having an >>>>>>abortion?

Yes it is a decision and one they have to consciously make. They need >>>>>to go to the effort to get a prescription, come up with the $10 a >>>>>month to pay, then remember to take the pills on time and in sync.
If they screw up the pills, they can increase the chance of getting >>>>>pregnant.
That involves a conscious effort and more than a little wisdom.
Throw a few drugs in the mix and this may be beyond their ability

You're suggesting that taking one morning after or two abortion pills >>>>is a bigger decision than getting an abortion. Do you think abortions >>>>are free? The pills may cost $100, now do some reading:

Are Abortions Free At Planned Parenthood?
Abortion is often sold as the most financially beneficial option for >>>>women experiencing unplanned pregnancies. Because of that, we’re often >>>>asked if abortions are free. The answer is no — abortions are not free >>>>at Planned Parenthood or other abortion clinics. Each procedure costs >>>>hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars depending on what stage of >>>>pregnancy the woman is in.

What part of irresponsible are you confused about?
You are extending your privileged white boy thinking onto a society
that isn't.
BTW I am sure lots of abortions get dumped back on the public dime >>>somehow and there should be more. It is the most efficient use of the >>>money unless you are using mandatory implants.

Sell that.

It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus >>>>>>>>kicking, right?

I would rather kill a kicking fetus than have to kill them when they >>>>>>>are kicking in my door.

So all babies born to the poor will kick at your door?

It is a statistical fact. Where is most of the crime and most of the >>>>>murders?
The "My door" part was metaphorical but it wasn't always. I lived in >>>>>SE DC where these kind of crimes were more prevalent until I could >>>>>afford to get out. I probably knew a lot more people in that >>>>>socioeconomic situation than you did.
These are not the most responsible bunch.

All that said, if they would pop Norplants in those girls in middle >>>>>school, I would like to chip in.
Try to get the righteous right to agree with that.
You may be more progressive than some of your counterparts but you get >>>>>judged by the people you associate with.

Nonsensical comments, Greg.

Actually not. I only deal with reality.

I do agree that the poor should lhave fewer kids. However, the pills >>>>work, are cheap, and require a hell of a lot less thought than a 12 >>>>week abortion.

Birth control pills require a constant thought, every day, that you >>>can't screw up and ignore. Miss a couple pills and the girl might be >>>super fertile. There is also a several percent failure rate among
women who swear they took them right.

Abortion is a one and done.

Either you can't read, or you simply choose to ignore fucking facts.

The 'morning after' pill is ONE fucking pill. The abortion pills are
TWO fucking pills.

Wake the fuck up.

They are still abortions in the eyes of right to life people but they
also have to be taken before you know you are pregnant. Are you saying
a woman should be taking one (or two) every time she has sex with all
of the side effects? >https://www.drugs.com/sfx/morning-after-side-effects.html

That was thrilling. A possiblity of Heavy or light menstrual bleeding,
and several minor 'Incidence not known'. Really scary that, eh Greg?

How long will the average person do that?

Hopefully she'll do that only after unprotected sex, such as after
rape or incest. Neither of the two pills should be used as regular
birth control.

Then there is the cost, these things aren't cheap. I know you are rich
but a lot of girls can't cough up $35-70 on a moments notice and hours
count.

More bullshit: https://smile.amazon.com/Xiromed-Emergency-Contraceptive-Pill-Women/dp/B09MKYGFW9/ref=sr_1_1?crid=QKRQ4DLSVZ2X&keywords=Levonorgestrel+bulk&qid=1653993319&sprefix=levonorgestrel+bulk%2Caps%2C49&sr=8-1
And again, it's not meant to be used as regular birth control.

The non-prescripton one is not always effective with "Big" girls

26BMI)

"This conclusion was reached by the EMA referral in 2014 and they
concluded that emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs) could be taken
regardless of body weight or BMI, as soon as possible after UPSI. " https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30569769/

The one that does work better is prescription only ... add another
$100-200 to the cost, assuming you can get an appointment in less
than 72 hours.

And how much are abortions, Gregg? Assuming you can get an
appointment. And, the abortion pill is effective up to 10 weeks, not
72 hours. Kinda shoots that last comment out of the water, eh?

I just think rich old white men should not be telling women what to do
with their uterus. When you grow one, you have a vote.

When does the baby get a vote, Gregg?

And, this comment of yours is bullsht, correct?

Birth control pills require a constant thought, every day, that you
can't screw up and ignore. Miss a couple pills and the girl might be
super fertile. There is also a several percent failure rate among
women who swear they took them right.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 30 May 2022 10:09:51 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Mon, 30 May 2022 06:28:19 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Fri, 20 May 2022 17:17:42 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Fri, 20 May 2022 07:33:42 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com" >>><3452471@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 10:52:22 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 19 May 2022 05:47:40 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com"

<345...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 4:42:12 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote: >>>>> >> On Wed, 18 May 2022 11:40:23 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com"

<345...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 12:33:49 AM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jher...@cox.net> wrote: >>>>> >> >

I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never
said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?

If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of your >>>>> >> >> comrades burn them. (google it)

Your comrades seem to have convinced you that this is a binary issue. It is not. Most folks who believe that abortion should not be legal after the fetus is viable don't consider themselves to be "pro-lifers", and would never dream of burning a

PP. That's just hyperbole on your part. There are certainly extreme views on both sides of this issue. But while the liberal MSM would have you believe otherwise, those people are the exception, not the rule.

Abortion, like guns are issues driven be extremists and they are >>>>> >happily exploited by politicians to obfuscate the real issues that are >>>>> >being ignored.

Let me fix that for you:
Abortion, like guns are issues driven by politicians to obfuscate the real issues that they want to ignore.

You wrote, "If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer." So you attempted to pigeon-hole anyone that doesn't believe in abortion up to delivery as a "pro-lifer", and if they don't "attack" PP they are a rare one. That's just false. And

binary thinking.

It is a binary issue with the people who have a problem with the idea >>>>> of abortion.

Wrong. It is not. It is binary thinking to believe that all people that struggle with the idea of abortion think the same.

OK quick question.
When is abortion OK?

Most people that you label "pro-life" believe it is OK for rape, incest, or medical reasons. Most of those also believe it is OK in the first tri. I do.

If you believe the loud fringe that the liberal MSM demonizes as the typical anti-abortion crowd is the norm, they have succeeded in sucking you in. Or maybe you are just a typical pro-abortion person.
:)

I just listen to what people say.
I am ambivalent about the whole issue myself. It is none of my
business until I get stuck supporting the spawn of irresponsible
people.
Humans are not an endangered species.

Your ambivalence sucks, or that statement is bullshit. Take your pick.

OK I am on the side that it is none of my business, nor yours, since
you don't have ovaries.

I have kids. The deaths of the kids in Uvalde are really 'none of my
business'. They were all fetuses at one time.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 31 May 2022 07:02:30 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Mon, 30 May 2022 10:24:15 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Mon, 30 May 2022 06:27:09 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Thu, 19 May 2022 22:52:04 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Thu, 19 May 2022 05:47:40 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com" >>>><3452471@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 4:42:12 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 18 May 2022 11:40:23 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com"

<345...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 12:33:49 AM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote: >>>>>> >> On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jher...@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>> >

I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never
said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?

If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of your
comrades burn them. (google it)

Your comrades seem to have convinced you that this is a binary issue. It is not. Most folks who believe that abortion should not be legal after the fetus is viable don't consider themselves to be "pro-lifers", and would never dream of burning a

PP. That's just hyperbole on your part. There are certainly extreme views on both sides of this issue. But while the liberal MSM would have you believe otherwise, those people are the exception, not the rule.

Abortion, like guns are issues driven be extremists and they are >>>>>happily exploited by politicians to obfuscate the real issues that are >>>>>being ignored.

Let me fix that for you:
Abortion, like guns are issues driven by politicians to obfuscate the real issues that they want to ignore.

You wrote, "If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer." So you attempted to pigeon-hole anyone that doesn't believe in abortion up to delivery as a "pro-lifer", and if they don't "attack" PP they are a rare one. That's just false. And

binary thinking.

It is a binary issue with the people who have a problem with the idea >>>>of abortion..

OK quick question.

When is abortion OK?

I will wait for all of you to answer

If I were still a staunch Catholic, I would have to say, "Never." >>>However, I have reached a compromise. I can live with the morning
after pill (note: that's ONE f'ing pill), the abortion pills (TWO
f'ing pills) or a first trimester abortion in the case of rape or
incest. That last one is a real compromise.

Not much compromise there.
The pill you talk about is only effective if you take it before you
think you might be pregnant.

More bullshit. I talked about two pills. One works out to 10 weeks.

After a day it is still an abortion. It is just done chemically
instead of the coat hanger you advocate when they are illegal..

If you are Paris Hilton and $70 means
nothing to you. go ahead and take one every time you have sex but that
is unrealistic unless you decide the government will just have them in >>every ladies room for free. No doctor's visit or prescription would be >>needed.

Please tell me where abortions cost less than $70.

When they get subsidized and it is the best use of the money. Far
better that supporting a teenaged mom who dropped out of school and a
kid who will probably end up in jail.

Maybe the government should tax right to lifers for the extra burden >>unwanted children put on our society. (welfare payments, crime and the
cost of prisons)

Why? There are plenty of alternatives to prevent the birth of those
'unwanted children'.

It reminds me of the PETA people who want to ban hunting but they are
not willing to replace the money hunters pay into wildlife management >>programs.

Your arguments show a wandering mind!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 31 May 2022 06:57:31 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Sun, 29 May 2022 22:14:26 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Sun, 29 May 2022 19:43:52 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Thu, 19 May 2022 22:29:10 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Thu, 19 May 2022 06:46:15 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2022 19:46:27 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

Is taking a pill a 'wise decision'? Is it more wise than having an >>>>>>>abortion?

Yes it is a decision and one they have to consciously make. They need >>>>>>to go to the effort to get a prescription, come up with the $10 a >>>>>>month to pay, then remember to take the pills on time and in sync. >>>>>>If they screw up the pills, they can increase the chance of getting >>>>>>pregnant.
That involves a conscious effort and more than a little wisdom. >>>>>>Throw a few drugs in the mix and this may be beyond their ability

You're suggesting that taking one morning after or two abortion pills >>>>>is a bigger decision than getting an abortion. Do you think abortions >>>>>are free? The pills may cost $100, now do some reading:

Are Abortions Free At Planned Parenthood?
Abortion is often sold as the most financially beneficial option for >>>>>women experiencing unplanned pregnancies. Because of that, we’re often >>>>>asked if abortions are free. The answer is no — abortions are not free >>>>>at Planned Parenthood or other abortion clinics. Each procedure costs >>>>>hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars depending on what stage of >>>>>pregnancy the woman is in.

What part of irresponsible are you confused about?
You are extending your privileged white boy thinking onto a society >>>>that isn't.
BTW I am sure lots of abortions get dumped back on the public dime >>>>somehow and there should be more. It is the most efficient use of the >>>>money unless you are using mandatory implants.

Sell that.

It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus >>>>>>>>>kicking, right?

I would rather kill a kicking fetus than have to kill them when they >>>>>>>>are kicking in my door.

So all babies born to the poor will kick at your door?

It is a statistical fact. Where is most of the crime and most of the >>>>>>murders?
The "My door" part was metaphorical but it wasn't always. I lived in >>>>>>SE DC where these kind of crimes were more prevalent until I could >>>>>>afford to get out. I probably knew a lot more people in that >>>>>>socioeconomic situation than you did.
These are not the most responsible bunch.

All that said, if they would pop Norplants in those girls in middle >>>>>>school, I would like to chip in.
Try to get the righteous right to agree with that.
You may be more progressive than some of your counterparts but you get >>>>>>judged by the people you associate with.

Nonsensical comments, Greg.

Actually not. I only deal with reality.

I do agree that the poor should lhave fewer kids. However, the pills >>>>>work, are cheap, and require a hell of a lot less thought than a 12 >>>>>week abortion.

Birth control pills require a constant thought, every day, that you >>>>can't screw up and ignore. Miss a couple pills and the girl might be >>>>super fertile. There is also a several percent failure rate among
women who swear they took them right.

Abortion is a one and done.

Either you can't read, or you simply choose to ignore fucking facts.

The 'morning after' pill is ONE fucking pill. The abortion pills are
TWO fucking pills.

Wake the fuck up.

They are still abortions in the eyes of right to life people but they
also have to be taken before you know you are pregnant. Are you saying
a woman should be taking one (or two) every time she has sex with all
of the side effects? >>https://www.drugs.com/sfx/morning-after-side-effects.html

That was thrilling. A possiblity of Heavy or light menstrual bleeding,
and several minor 'Incidence not known'. Really scary that, eh Greg?

How long will the average person do that?

Hopefully she'll do that only after unprotected sex, such as after
rape or incest. Neither of the two pills should be used as regular
birth control.

You must really have lived a sheltered life if you think girls having
sex is that rare.

Then there is the cost, these things aren't cheap. I know you are rich
but a lot of girls can't cough up $35-70 on a moments notice and hours >>count.

More bullshit: >https://smile.amazon.com/Xiromed-Emergency-Contraceptive-Pill-Women/dp/B09MKYGFW9/ref=sr_1_1?crid=QKRQ4DLSVZ2X&keywords=Levonorgestrel+bulk&qid=1653993319&sprefix=levonorgestrel+bulk%2Caps%2C49&sr=8-1
And again, it's not meant to be used as regular birth control.

OK so now you assume these girls have prime and even then it is a race
with the planting of the sperm to see when the prime truck arrives.
Too late is simply too late.
BTW all regular birth control methods have failures and it is far too
late for these pills when they know it failed.

The non-prescripton one is not always effective with "Big" girls

26BMI)

"This conclusion was reached by the EMA referral in 2014 and they
concluded that emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs) could be taken
regardless of body weight or BMI, as soon as possible after UPSI. " >https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30569769/

There is more than one. The non-presctription one has a bad failure
rate with big girls.

The one that does work better is prescription only ... add another
$100-200 to the cost, assuming you can get an appointment in less
than 72 hours.

And how much are abortions, Gregg? Assuming you can get an
appointment. And, the abortion pill is effective up to 10 weeks, not
72 hours. Kinda shoots that last comment out of the water, eh?

The abortion pill, is still an abortion of a viable fetus. I am
surprised you support that.

I just think rich old white men should not be telling women what to do
with their uterus. When you grow one, you have a vote.

When does the baby get a vote, Gregg?

And, this comment of yours is bullsht, correct?

The baby gets the "vote" at 18, just like everyone else.
It's in the constitution

Birth control pills require a constant thought, every day, that you >>>can't screw up and ignore. Miss a couple pills and the girl might be >>>super fertile. There is also a several percent failure rate among
women who swear they took them right.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 31 May 2022 07:06:51 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Mon, 30 May 2022 10:09:51 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Mon, 30 May 2022 06:28:19 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

On Fri, 20 May 2022 17:17:42 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

On Fri, 20 May 2022 07:33:42 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com" >>>><3452471@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 10:52:22 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 19 May 2022 05:47:40 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com"

<345...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 4:42:12 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote: >>>>>> >> On Wed, 18 May 2022 11:40:23 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com"

<345...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 12:33:49 AM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jher...@cox.net> wrote:

I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never
said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?

If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of your >>>>>> >> >> comrades burn them. (google it)

Your comrades seem to have convinced you that this is a binary issue. It is not. Most folks who believe that abortion should not be legal after the fetus is viable don't consider themselves to be "pro-lifers", and would never dream of burning

a PP. That's just hyperbole on your part. There are certainly extreme views on both sides of this issue. But while the liberal MSM would have you believe otherwise, those people are the exception, not the rule.

Abortion, like guns are issues driven be extremists and they are >>>>>> >happily exploited by politicians to obfuscate the real issues that are >>>>>> >being ignored.

Let me fix that for you:
Abortion, like guns are issues driven by politicians to obfuscate the real issues that they want to ignore.

You wrote, "If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer." So you attempted to pigeon-hole anyone that doesn't believe in abortion up to delivery as a "pro-lifer", and if they don't "attack" PP they are a rare one. That's just false. And

binary thinking.

It is a binary issue with the people who have a problem with the idea >>>>>> of abortion.

Wrong. It is not. It is binary thinking to believe that all people that struggle with the idea of abortion think the same.

OK quick question.
When is abortion OK?

Most people that you label "pro-life" believe it is OK for rape, incest, or medical reasons. Most of those also believe it is OK in the first tri. I do.

If you believe the loud fringe that the liberal MSM demonizes as the typical anti-abortion crowd is the norm, they have succeeded in sucking you in. Or maybe you are just a typical pro-abortion person.
:)

I just listen to what people say.
I am ambivalent about the whole issue myself. It is none of my
business until I get stuck supporting the spawn of irresponsible >>>>people.
Humans are not an endangered species.

Your ambivalence sucks, or that statement is bullshit. Take your pick.

OK I am on the side that it is none of my business, nor yours, since
you don't have ovaries.

I have kids. The deaths of the kids in Uvalde are really 'none of my >business'. They were all fetuses at one time.

So was Hitler, Jeff Dahmer and the guy who shot all those kids in
Texas. What's your point?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)