Text 20862, 345 rader
Skriven 2015-01-25 11:58:00 av TIM RICHARDSON (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av NICHOLAS BOEL
Ärende: Re: Gowdy
=================
On 01-24-15, NICHOLAS BOEL said to TIM RICHARDSON:

NB>Hello TIM,

NB>On 24 Jan 15 05:30, TIM RICHARDSON wrote to NICHOLAS BOEL:


NB>> If you accept the fact that abortions because of rape and danger of
NB>> the mother's life are viable, then there is no possible way you can
NB>> be "pro-life". That is what I'm getting at. A "pro-life" system
NB>> would force mothers to have post-rape children. No effing way would
NB>> I support that.


NB>> Sorry.


TR> Nor do I. And never have.


NB>Yet you argue, scratch, claw, and protest all pro-choice,


That is either a deliberate lie, or an attempt at distorting what I actually
said.


I am not protesting `all pro-choice'. I have pointed out that the *choice*
does not get made in the second or third trimester of pregnancy.


The *choice* is made prior to sexual contact beginning. And the *choice*
is `what type of birth control to make use of'.


If the *choice* is made not to USE any of the MANY methods of birth
control available over the counter...and a pregnancy results from
the woman making the wrong *choice*...then, barring a rape or danger to
the woman's life if the pregnancy goes to term, the only *choice*
she has left is:


Does she put the newborn up for adoption? Or...
What does she name her new baby?


Its been over 70 years since WWII.


Still....70 years after WWII individuals who were in a German uniform
with SS runes on it are identified in their old age, prosecuted and
imprisoned if found guilty of even being in a unit of SS who were
said to have committed atrocities.


And its always the same cry......`six million Jews'.....


That was over 70 years ago, yet still members of Congress who strongly
support Israel use that `holocaust' stick to beat members of Congress
into pouring funds into Israel.


There have been over 50 MILLION humans aborted since Roe v Wade...yet
all you hear about those 50 MILLION is....`well, its the woman's
*choice*.


The photos of the practices of Dr. Gosnell are of equal horror than
some of the photos of Dr. Mengele's work. What makes them even worse
than Mengele is...it took place in a country that liberated those
camps, and put on trial for their lives, those who gave the orders
that brought the `holocaust' about.


For six million....there is a 70-year outcry.


For 50 million...only an outcry of `a woman's choice'.


NB>and consider them "leftists."


The abortion mills that have grown out of the decision to find some
twisted meaning in an obscure interpretation of the Constitution,
by a few individuals in black robes on the edge of dementia, are
the sole property of the leftists. It is they who own the abortion
issue, lock, stock and barrel.


TR>> There are so many methods of birth control or preventives out
TR>> there `over the counter', that there is no viable reason for
TR>> abortions other than rape or danger to the mother's life.


NB>> Other than? Exactly. With that said, you CANNOT be pro-life. See
NB>> how that works?


A D&C within the first couple of weeks is hardly a reason to shake your
accusatory finger at me and shout `haha'! in your best `gotcha' style.


By the way....in all this I don't recall ever claiming to be "pro-life",
that is *your* invention.


TR> You strangely attempt to twist what I say to mean *your* version of
TR> the issue; typical leftist trick.


NB>I am far from leftist, but you can be the first to throw stones and call
NB>names there, Tim.


Being called a `leftist' is hardly `throwing stones'. The pro-abortion
issue is a `leftist' trait. The `leftists' own abortion. `Leftst' is
pretty much the same as `democrat'. Just as `conservative' is seen as
`republican'.


Refering to you as `leftist' isn't ` throwing stones'. If you wish to
continue this `conversation'....do not attempt to lower it to the level
of a flame war ala Bill McGarrity.


NB>I've seen how you work. As soon as it's turned back on
NB>you you cry bloody murder and start playing the innocent card.


Are you living in a dream world? Or are you just trying awfully hard to
see if you can spark a flame war?


NB>You said last week you were leaving Fidonet for good. Couldn't stay away?


I said last week I was getting tired of Fido and was seriouosly considering
finding something else to do with the time I use for it while having my
first cups of coffee in the morning. I still do not see much point in
continuing to participate in Fido as its pretty well down to just picking
arguments for the sake of arguing.


TR> Pregnancy isn't something that comes on suddenly in the final
TR> trimester stage; its something thats known in the very first couple of
TR> months if not less.


NB>No kidding.


TR> In the case of either a rape, or danger to a potential mother's
TR> life...a D&C in the first two months should be acceptable to all.


NB>And a D&C is still considered an abortion. It being "acceptable" is a
NB>statement of pro-choice. Yet your original comment was bashing them all to
NB>hell and back. Just pointing out the double standard here, is all.


You're going off the deep end. No `double standard' there. You're
seeing things that aren't there.


NB>> I'm sure there's MUCH worse crap out there that you or I don't ever
NB>> see. $3000 divided amongst some odd trillion people paying taxes?


There aren't a `trillion' people in the entire world.


The US has roughly 350 million population, and all can use the $3000 for
much better things than either paying for a woman's birth control or
a late term abortion. Like fixing the damn potholes in the streets!


Where does personal responsibility end and the taxpayer's responsibility
begin? People really don't see that a woman who's having an abortion
because she doesn't want to have a baby, is really admitting she's too
stupid to control her sexual urges long enough to take precautions against
pregnancy prior to sexual contact?


In fifty million abortions since Roe v Wade...exactly how many of those
do you really think were from rape or danger to the prospective mother's
life?


I have never come out and claimed I was `baptist-church' anti-abortion.


There are proper reasons to abort a fetus. Rape is one. Danger to a
prospective mother's life is another.


But using abortion as the first line of birth control, when there are
so many over-the-counter methods of birth control available, should
not be an option.


And putting the taxpayer's money into the equation isn't acceptable either.


`It's her body'. Agreed. `She should have choices'. Agreed.


Along with the decision to engage in sexual activity comes `responsibility'.


Just like driving a car.


The choice to drive or NOT to drive is up to the individual. But if an
individual makes the decision to drive....there are responsibilities
that go with that decision. And they are held to them.


Right from the moment prior to sexual activity a woman has three choices:


1. Whether or not to engage in sex at all.

2. If she makes the choice to engage in sex with a male...her second choice
is: what method of birth control does she use.

3. If she isn't using any...her third choice is: what sort of birth preventive
does she insist her partner use.


If she:

1. Engages in sex .....she's made a choice.

2. If she does so without bothering to use some sort of birth preventive...
she's made a second choice.

3. If she didn't make her partner use a birth preventive...she's made a third
choice.


If a pregnancy results....


And...if it wasn't rape...


And it isn't a danger to her life...


Then she gets one of two choices:


1. Put the newborn up for adoption.

2. What to name her new baby.


There's five choices the woman has. All involve her being responsible
for her own actions, and not throwing the financial responsibility for
*her* bad choices onto others. In this case...the taxpayers.


People are responsible for their own actions, or they aren't.


And people are made to take responsibility for the costs of their
own bad decisions....or they aren't.


Either way....why should taxpayers have to pay for someone's birth
control or abortions?


Where does the woman's responsibility end and the taxpayers' begin?


THATS the actual meat and potatoes of any discussion on the matter.


All the rest....`throwing stones....yadida yadida'...is useless.


The bottom line is....the woman does have *choices*...none of which
involve the death of a human.


By the way....I've both seen these conversations and participated in
them here in Fido for many years, now.


And in pretty well all of them....the left's usual position is that,
prior to actual `birth'...what's in a woman's womb is nothing but a
`polyglot'....a `thing'....whatever...anything but a `human'.


And their reasoning goes something like; `so...it isn't even a `human'
yet until it is actually born alive'...with which they think they've
completely destroyed any opposition to abortion from the right.


My stated acceptance of a D&C within the first several weeks of a
pregnancy for the reason of either rape or danger to the mother's
health is perfectly within the parameters of what the pro-abortion
crowd insists upon (it isn't a `human' its only a `pologlot'..it
isn't a life its only a `thing' on the wall of the woman's uterus'..
...etc etc....I really have had this conversation in Fido before,
honest). So you'd better be careful or you'll soon find you've
crossed the line and are now arguing from the other side without
realizing it.


And before you go off with another `nothing' sandwich:


I have never taken the fanatical `pro-life' position...I am merely
against abortion being used as a backup method of birth control.


And...giving the left their `its a woman's choice since its `her' body'
...my position is; fine! Its' `her body'....and `her' responsibility
as well.


`Abortion on demand' is the law of the land (as we are endlessly reminded).


So be it. The law is the law. If it came to an actual `vote' on a national
ballot, I'd vote against it. But it was legalized by U.S. Supreme Court
decision. I accept that. No argument.


It is the `money involved' that the actual dispute is over. It is `her'
body...`she' makes the decisions...the cost is `her' responsibility, not
the taxpayers. I accept that it is `legal'. But why should I and other
taxpayers pay? For either her birth control OR abortion when she's too
stupid to avail herself of the many birth preventives available to her
at very little cost?



---
*Durango b301 #PE* 
 * Origin: Check Out Doc's QWK Mail  Via Web BBS > DocsPlace.org  (1:123/140)