 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw Date: 18 May 13 - 08:40 AM OK, add misogyny to your sins. Fine by me. Incidentally, looking at this "ethically" has got us where we are. Up shit creek without a paddle, in other words. Let's try treating it as a practical matter that can be resolved without preaching at people. In the meantime, why not try applying your "ethics" to honest science? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 18 May 13 - 06:10 AM seems to me that it all depends on the humanity of the unborn if we approach the problem ethically,but on the woman [and those pressurizing her]if looked at without that constraint. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw Date: 17 May 13 - 07:00 PM Good sex education and available birth control should prevent the problem of unwanted pregnancies in the first place, but if all else fails, abortion should be available to any woman who wants one. That's it in a nutshell, Don. What the planet needs is a panel of wise people (vicars, bishops, right-wingers, etc., would be rigorously excluded) to define good sex education. The plumbing department is about ten percent of good sex education. Advice on family planning and contraception (useless unless contraception is freely available) is another ten percent. The rest is all about teaching respect for self and for others, for ridding ourselves of sexism and chauvinism and for showing children that the best world is one based on consideration for others and fair play. That's a process that you don't delegate to the biology teacher. It involves everybody who ever comes into contact with young people (in other words, everybody except the Pope, even physics specialists). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Don Firth Date: 17 May 13 - 01:59 PM Once again, cut from up-thread a way and pasted again here, is my stance on abortion. Does this sound, as Goofy claims, that I'm "pro-abortion?" Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass EffortI think that was clear enough for most relatively intelligent people. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw Date: 17 May 13 - 01:16 PM "I thought you were pro-abortion...." There is not a single sane person on this planet who is pro-abortion. Attend to your terminology. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Don Firth Date: 17 May 13 - 02:34 AM And you know, Goofy, if you hadn't got yourself expelled from nursery school, you might have eventually learned how to read. I never, at any point in this discussion, did I say that I'm "for abortion." I believe that the option of abortion should be available to a woman in certain circumstances, which I specifically stated above. Once, yet AGAIN, you are lying you stupid head off!! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Don Firth Date: 17 May 13 - 12:05 AM In your case, yes. But it's a little late now. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 16 May 13 - 10:01 PM Don Firth: "GfS, if you're referring to what I think you're referring to, there never was any question of abortion. And you got his name wrong. Like everything else." Well if I got it wrong, how do you know what I was referring to? But now that you brought it up, how come: "...there never was any question of abortion."? I thought you were pro-abortion.... GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Don Firth Date: 16 May 13 - 09:26 PM GfS, if you're referring to what I think you're referring to, there never was any question of abortion. And you got his name wrong. Like everything else. Idiot!! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Richard Bridge Date: 16 May 13 - 02:18 AM Steve, I'd just like to say how I admire your patience with the coercive idiots posting here. You are batting about 100% right. FFS - you are a disgrace to your alleged profession. As an (alleged) counsellor I would think you to be a great contributor to suicides. PFSS - if I couldn't read your shit here I wouldn't believe that such inanity was possible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 16 May 13 - 01:13 AM I misread, and thought it meant 'adopted'. Don Firth: "I don't think that Goofy knows the difference between "aborted" and "adopted." Well Don, being as you favor abortions..... David is still here.....does it matter?.....or is that just for everybody else?..and to bolster your 'so-called' liberalism???....Do you have regrets??....Now that you got to meet him! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Ebbie Date: 15 May 13 - 11:24 PM Ah. That explains so much. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Don Firth Date: 15 May 13 - 10:20 PM I don't think that Goofy knows the difference between "aborted" and "adopted." Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Ebbie Date: 15 May 13 - 10:11 PM "more to the point if you choose to have an abortion,you are no longer a mother - to that child." Not only 'to that child', but legally also. In most cases, the natural parents have to sign an agreement, not to make contact with the child, and agree that the child's whereabouts will not be disclosed." GfS "Not to make contact" with the aborted child? It boggles the mind... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw Date: 15 May 13 - 08:06 PM and then I get the backlash as if it was just my opinion, and how 'mean' I am.....when will some of you just grow the fuck up??? Said with a thoroughly endearing lack of irony... :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 15 May 13 - 07:54 PM pete from seven stars link: "more to the point if you choose to have an abortion,you are no longer a mother - to that child." Not only 'to that child', but legally also. In most cases, the natural parents have to sign an agreement, not to make contact with the child, and agree that the child's whereabouts will not be disclosed. ...and Pete, you also brought up a good point...AND it's even true! GfS P.S. The link I posted was 'Roe's of 'Roe vs Wade', stating her thoughts and feelings, and recalling the history of it. ...and then I get the backlash as if it was just my opinion, and how 'mean' I am.....when will some of you just grow the fuck up??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw Date: 15 May 13 - 07:15 PM You see, pete, that's where you and your benighted ilk have got it so wrong. If in doubt, appeal to emotion. Carry on. Do the mummy and baby stuff, and get no answers. The sooner you and your fellow-travellers see that abortion is a practical matter, not a moral or emotional one*, the sooner we can get to work on getting those numbers down. But that isn't what you want, is it, pete. Oh no, that would not suit your moralising agenda at all. Get those numbers down and you'd have nothing to moralise about! *Which is in no way intended to demean individual women who have abortions. There's nothing in a man's compass that could begin to compare with the emotional wrangle of going through an abortion. But I'm talking about how we as society need to take a step or two back to see this issue in the round. And I always come back to the point that morals have no place in the discussion about getting abortion numbers down. Morality-preaching, in this issue above almost all others, serves to cloud the situation. And I have yet to see a religious standpoint on abortion that would do anything other thn maintain abortion numbers at a high level. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 15 May 13 - 03:37 PM more to the point if you choose to have an abortion,you are no longer a mother - to that child. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Greg F. Date: 12 May 13 - 10:01 AM don firth- and what do we do with the 2 yr old who becomes unwanted? Jaysus, Pete, get a clue (or a life) will ya? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw Date: 12 May 13 - 09:14 AM If you so choose to have an abortion, that is. I'm having a bad grammar day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw Date: 12 May 13 - 09:13 AM the pro [unwilling mothers] choice side For your information, pro-choice refers to the belief that you should have the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. If you so choose, you are not a mother, therefore you cannot be an "unwilling mother". If you choose to have your baby, you are a willing mother. Your vicious intolerance is showing through, I'm afraid. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 12 May 13 - 07:54 AM interesting link gfs.highlghts the issues the pro [unwilling mothers] choice side wish to dismiss and minimize. don firth- and what do we do with the 2 yr old who becomes unwanted? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw Date: 12 May 13 - 06:19 AM Now how do we jump from curbing the amount of abortions, to 'forcing women to have babies'? Under your regime of ignorance, intolerance and chauvinism there's no jump to be made. They are the same thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 12 May 13 - 02:36 AM Now how do we jump from curbing the amount of abortions, to 'forcing women to have babies'? Sounds like a bunch of political over re-action and getting a little heavy on the dramatic. Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything...except to support political policies, even if their 'religious' beliefs, tell them something else.....Oh, and the taxpayers, who, once again, have to fork out money to remedy the irresponsible actions of lamebrains. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Don Firth Date: 12 May 13 - 01:56 AM Forcing a woman to have a child she doesn't want isn't exactly the healthiest thing for a woman's emotional side either. Nor, for that matter, is being unwanted real healthy for the emotions of the child. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 12 May 13 - 01:09 AM Steve 'Feet in the Mouth Shaw: "What a bunch of ignorant, ill-informed, patronising, chauvinistic shite. Shame on you. I thought you were supposed to be some kind of counsellor." That's right....and that's how I know it, unlike your political talking points nonsense, mixed with the wishful thinking that if you ignore it, (their emotional needs and hurts), it won't bother you at all! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw Date: 11 May 13 - 07:20 PM ..and getting an abortion, for a woman is NOT altogether the healthiest thing for their emotional side, either. What a bunch of ignorant, ill-informed, patronising, chauvinistic shite. Shame on you. I thought you were supposed to be some kind of counsellor. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 11 May 13 - 04:48 PM Well, I don't think setting a quota would be good one way or another. ..and getting an abortion, for a woman is NOT altogether the healthiest thing for their emotional side, either. I posted a link to a woman who was 'Roe' of 'Roe vs Wade'...I thought it was more than 'telling' in several areas...her feelings, the political pressure, the legal fraud, and her regrets. You don't have to pin any labels on all those who happen to see her point, and agree with her....after all, it is 'Roe' of 'Roe vs Wade' fame. It would serve you well to check it out...if you haven't....and I don't think that she could be name called, as just an 'antiabortionist-anti-choice' bigot....do you? Here is is again, in case you might be curious Read it carefully...at least to get HER thoughts on it. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: frogprince Date: 11 May 13 - 04:11 PM Yuh: Gfs: Do you believe that all married couples should produce as many children as possible? It's not an absurd question; there are people, united as the "full quiver" movement, who advocate that. Do you believe that no one should ever have sex unless they are deliberately intending to conceive a child? Again, that is not a new idea. Do you believe that any abortion, under any circumstances whatever, should be illegal and that every effort should be made to prevent it? That isn't even close to an absurd question; we have a remarkable number of politicians saying that, and a remarkable number of people voting for them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw Date: 11 May 13 - 03:42 PM Pro-choice refers to the womans's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. That is what everyone who uses the term means by it. It is, in that sense, perfectly accurate. Opportunistic moralising about other areas of choice whenever the word crops up, Guffers, is disingenuous and misleading. And thoroughly dishonest. I suppose that the people who oppose the woman's right to abortion are anti-choice. That's accurate too, but again it carries that polarising factor with it. It reeks of intolerance and lack of understanding. I happen to think that people who oppose a woman's right to have an abortion are those things, but the name doesn't exactly help. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: dick greenhaus Date: 11 May 13 - 11:17 AM Labels matter (check out Orwell in the appendix to 1984). The GOP has been very good at this kind of manipulative labeling: ie "death tax" instead of "estate tax", "Pro-life" instead of "Anti-choice", "Entitlements" instead of "Social Safety Net" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 11 May 13 - 11:16 AM Steve Shaw: "Pro-life" is a disgraceful term." ..as is, 'pro-choice'. Once fertilization begins, there is no 'choice' that that process begins OTHER THAN, being responsible, when there was a CHOICE, to act responsibly towards what it is that people have pushed out of balance. In other words, a 'moment of pleasure', while disregarding possible consequences...and as long as people are irresponsible regarding their actions, the question will go on, as long as people have a 'free' ride, to NOT take into account, that sometimes those 'moments of pleasure', are NOT at the top of the 'food chain' in prioritizing their lives. The 'choice' begins with the moment one DECIDES(choice), to disregard the FACT, that their 'toys', are actually the reproductive system, hard wired, to continue the species. The 'allure' is nothing more than the 'mating dance' exploited, for lesser reasons. ..and that, my dear 'out of control' Mudcat horn-dogs, is the way it is. I didn't write the rules...but I'm just reminding you that they exist, and are often overlooked, for selfish reasons. Choice???....but more often than not, ignored!.... So, the term 'pro-choice' is quite a misnomer in itself!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw Date: 11 May 13 - 10:30 AM "Pro-life" is a disgraceful term. If I have to use it, I try to remember to say "so-called" in front of it. Getting abortion numbers down (what you'd think would be a universal desire, until you see how some religions teach the very things that can only work to keep the numbers up) is a practical matter. Individual abortions may be full of angst and mixed emotions, but we can't discuss getting the numbers down unless we take a step back and remove the emotion (and the moralising) from the conversation. Inserting emotion into the very name of "your side" is a very bad start. "Pro-choice" is accurate and unemotional. "Anti-choice", unfortunately, has the smell of intolerance about it. "Anti-abortion" doesn't work for me because its opposite is pro-abortion, which is ludicrous. It's a sad thing, but the names we give to our respective factions are all too readily used as weapons against the other side. They get in the way of rational discussion. If we are sensible and wish to avoid polarisation, we simply have to start from the standpoint that we are all anti-abortion. That does not mean we all oppose abortion, or even wish to put any obstacles in the way of women. Then we have to see the issue as a practical one. We want to get those numbers down. We must talk about that without demeaning women, without moralising and without the "killing babies" style of emotional handbagging. Find common ground. There is some. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 10 May 13 - 10:42 PM No, I was just referring to the word 'host'. I meant nothing about the 'ess'. Interesting choice, that's all. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Ebbie Date: 10 May 13 - 09:31 PM I thought about 'hostESS', GfS, but it seemed a bit twee. As for the label "pro-life" I agree that they have co-opted a designation they have not earned in any sense. As typified by the almost unanimous pro-capital punishment stance they take, they are not pro-life at all but anti-choice, as noted above by both Steve Shaw and Dick Greenhaus. I would respect them more if they were more forthright about it. It seems strange to me that just about every plank of the anti-choice platform is antithetical to everything I hold dear. One would think there would be at least a few overlapping beliefs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: dick greenhaus Date: 10 May 13 - 09:09 PM To start with, why not drop the loaded "pro-life" label and call it what it is: "anti-choice" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw Date: 10 May 13 - 06:57 AM Congratulations, pete, on producing the most inane of all your many inane posts. That is indeed a difficult area, Ebbie. The thing is, though, that late abortions already represent a tiny minority of all abortions. I contend that good education along the lines I've suggested would reduce them to vanishingly-small numbers. The trouble with having time limits is that they give the anti-abortion lobby a handle. Their efforts and energy are overwhelmingly focussed on getting that limit down, and so the ugly fight continues. Well I think education is a far better way of avoiding late abortions. And let's not forget that illegal late abortions are the most traumatic, messy and dangerous of the lot. I admit that this particular area gives me a bit of a wobble, but I'm sticking to me guns, on reflection. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 10 May 13 - 04:58 AM i was watching a TED vid yesterday of the conception to birth journey and IMO it is quite clear that we are talking about human beings at an early stage being formed,even if the religious view of this being from conception is rejected. IMO the "back street abortion" argument is a poor one.at the other end of life ,we might as well say take your dementia mum to the medics to be put down to avoid back street euthanasias. of course we dont have them - yet! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 10 May 13 - 02:09 AM Ebbie: "If the host, the mother, is ....." Interesting choice of words. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Ebbie Date: 10 May 13 - 12:04 AM I would agree with all that, Steve Shaw, except for one thing: I do think there need to be time limits. If a pregnancy has proceeded for six months, say, and the fetus is viable I think an abortion, a pre-emptive extraction, should be permitted ONLY in cases of imminent danger to the mother. Even then I think it should be taken by cesarean. If the host, the mother, is in such bad shape that a pregnancy cannot be continued, surely the simple cesarean would be less traumatic to her system. Complicating timelines is the fact that science is saving ever-younger babies. A generation ago, a two-pound fetus was simply not going to survive. That is no longer true. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 09 May 13 - 11:55 PM Richard Bridge: "They MOSTLY are legislators in various small-town jurisdictions who want to restrict abortion, restrict contraception, restrict maternity benefits, restrict welfare and programs to empower single parents and the children of single parents - ..." How come most all the emphasis is on '....programs to empower single parents and the children of single parents..." Seems to me, (and others), that many of these programs empower people to BE single parents, and to have abortions. How come the same people who are SO CONCERNED about "....programs to empower single parents and the children of single parents...." seem not to give a shit about whole nuclear families??....even view them with contempt...what's with that?? As it is, nobody is FORCING women to have babies, as much as they push women to get abortions....what's with that?? Having babies is a normal function in life....having abortions really isn't, when you come to think of it. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 May 13 - 09:02 PM That is certainly food for thought. Still, I suppose that, for the girl undergoing the abortion, it still wouldn't exactly feel good. Here's me, in a nutshell. Talking about when life truly starts is futile. We've been rattling on about this for decades and there is simply no prospect for agreement. It inflames people on both sides and is all heat and no light. We have to move on from that - and, pro-lifers, it means a moral compromise on your part. Tough, but the argument is pointless and you have to come to terms. If you need an abortion it almost certainly means you got pregnant when you didn't want to. The only way we will ever get abortion numbers down is by helping people to not get pregnant until they are ready. This is such a numskull, bleedin' obvious notion, yet it causes so much difficulty. Mainly from religion. People are going to have sex, not abstain. People who have sex can't rely on rhythm methods or withdrawal. Everyone likely to have sex (which is nearly everybody) needs to know about, and have free access to, contraception. Duh. They need to know about the mechanics of sex and pregnancy. The real stuff, not the behind-the-bikeshed stuff. Sex is such a crucial part of human life that everyone involved in raising children needs to be involved in education about relationships. We need good parenting classes. We need every teacher in every school to be involved in showing children how to build respect for themselves and for others. Teachers are supposed to be paragons of virtue. Well let's see a bit of it. Your subject area is nowhere near as important as showing the kids in front of you that you respect them, they respect you, they respect each other, and why. Religion has played a terrible part in maintaining women as inferior beings. It can make no contribution to this debate. The religion I know best preaches abstinence, sin, ignorance, and no contraception. Religion is part of the problem (or almost the whole of the problem), and cannot be involved in any solution. Religion champions abortion. Unfettered access to abortion, regardless of income and with no time limits, is crucial. Deny abortion to women and you will get illegal abortion with all the misery that comes with it. At the same time, get teachers and parents in on the act and show young people how to control whether they get pregnant or not (that's the urgent bit) and a lot more than just that. The horrid abortion rate is everyone's issue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: frogprince Date: 09 May 13 - 08:09 PM We have a local "pregnancy center", really a right-to-life organization, which publicises their promise to help women find forgiveness if they have sinned by having an abortion. With material like that around, it could be easy read the statement "abortion is bad" as "having an abortion is an evil thing to do". One thought regarding Steve's stance, and that would be in regard to pregnancy from rape. As Steve noted some time back, the morning-after pill should be made available immediately; but there will be instances, if only when a traumitised woman does not bring herself to report a rape promptly, when that doesn't work out. I'm just thinking that, in that or other possible extenuating circumstances, it may not even be appropriate to say that the abortion itself is "bad" This may be considered to be "straining at a gnat"; Steve's position is well stated and I respect it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 May 13 - 07:55 PM Yeah, but this area is a bit of a minefield for us chaps, Ebbie. Our spirit and intentions can be good but you can make one little slip of language and the Angelas and the Shaniquas of this world are on you like a ton of bricks. That's fine, and, as a bloke, I'm acutely aware of the need to listen to the people on the sharp end - women - and constantly adjust my mindset according to what women say. But I can only respond to reason (and I would never claim that the ability to reason is more developed in us chaps, far from it). To put it rather crudely (I'm a northerner, you know), Shaniqua and Angela shit in their own beds when they let fly as they have done. I'm not allowed to say that, by their rants, they do the cause of women's progression in the world very little good, but I can still think it. It's too bloody scary and unfocussed to do any good, and, if you can't consider outcomes, well you might as well keep your mouth shut, I reckon. I've rather clumsily stood up for women's rights and equality all my adult life, and I don't want to hear rants when I put forth my opinion that accuse me of being a bigot or a Nazi. Blokes need women, for sure, but human beings all need each other, ears akimbo. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Ebbie Date: 09 May 13 - 07:35 PM In my opinion, Angela G scanned Steve Shaw's previous post(s) and decided that she knew what he was saying. She was wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: John P Date: 09 May 13 - 07:25 PM Well, yes Steve, obviously. It's really too bad that so much of the rest of the world seems to believe that turning women into sexual slaves is OK. How do they live with themselves? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 May 13 - 04:05 PM I think abortions are bad things but I think there should be no restrictions on women whatsoever. I honestly think that there can be no other starting point when addressing this issue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: John P Date: 09 May 13 - 10:15 AM Angela, your position seems to be that no man should have anything to say on the subject of abortion. Here's what you seem to be missing: most of us aren't talking about abortion. We're talking about whether or not it is appropriate to force women to have babies. And another thing you may have missed: we all get to talk about any damn thing we please. I have to say that, even after I take out all the uncalled-for insults in your post, I still don't know if you are pro-choice, anti-abortion, or just generally angry. I do gather that you are pissed off at Steve because he thinks that abortions are bad things. I'd love to hear your rationale for any other position, if you can deliver it without insulting other people for things they didn't say or that you just misunderstood. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 May 13 - 06:10 AM Well, Angela Galbraith, that rant is little more than a series of gross misrepresentations of both the content and (more crucially) the spirit of what I've said on this topic, and you spice it with a dose of rudeness that I certainly haven't accorded you. Until you cool down a bit instead of using the thread to get your own personal issues off your chest and shoot down people who genuinely try to think about these things, there really isn't much point trying to engage with you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Richard Bridge Date: 09 May 13 - 06:07 AM FFS - learn to read. MOST (I did not say all, I know there are madwomen who seek to oppress their own sex) of the oppressors, in this context, of women are men. They MOSTLY are legislators in various small-town jurisdictions who want to restrict abortion, restrict contraception, restrict maternity benefits, restrict welfare and programs to empower single parents and the children of single parents - who even try to restrict sexual activity (except when they are doing it to someone they sought to disempower, and usually lying about it and sometimes illegally claiming expenses for doing it). Therblig - you need to learn to read as well. Steve said none of the things of which you accuse him. You speak of the (alleged) knowledge of women - yet deny women their own choices. |
