"The PLM"

There! :P

P.S.: I wonder what "the Carolyn" thinks about all of this...

But here's where it gets sticky. At what price do we preserve life, and where is the line drawn? While I certainly don't support murdering a child just because it's born premature or is unwanted, there is a huge difference between an abortion and simply allowing nature to take its course. Miscarriages usually happen because the child can not, even at full term, live on its own outside of the womb. This child should have been allowed to die naturally in his mother's arms. Instead he was used as some sort of guinea pig for the hospital. I find the whole situation despicable, and I hope that the parents win!

I, hereby known as ::really:: anonymous, would like to point out that the comment Mr. Burke has re-posted with his latest comments, was not a quote of sass's, but rather a quote of a comment made by ::another:: guest. If you read the book over the last several days, you would've been able to figure that out. Sass has so far only rolled her eyes at Mr. Burke's comments, an action frequently taken by many a guest here. If you indeed are one of the ::grown-ups:: that would like to carry on a conversation here, what might that conversation be, and why must you be anonymous? =^)

JCEII canon city, co USA - Wednesday, November 17, 1999 at 09:54:29 (EST) from cc-ppp151.ri "Many conservative women have weird "ideas" concerning reality and morality."

When I asked you (after illustrating that one man's concept of weird is another man's norm) whose concept of weird we were to go by, you replied:

JCEII canon city, co USA - Wednesday, November 17, 1999 at 15:22:56 (EST) from cc-ppp56.ris.net "To sass A. frass: marriage is whatever anyone wants it to be just like being in love/lust, being a "parent" or what the definition of a "baby" or "life" could be. For me...."

The Prolifeman

P.S.

The rules for quote submissions are that each one begin with a "the" before the name of the person being addressed in the quote.

For example: "To the Carolyn", why dont you focus on lives already here after birth rather than silly fetuses, and renounce the Satanic GOP which favors the rich only?, etc...

Wow, Beanies count as kids now? I've got more "kids" than the little old lady who lived in a shoe ;)

The Carolyn ~ Can you refer me to a good agent? I fear that with all this "truth" coming out, "enquiring minds" are going to be hounding me for the "skinny" on those kids. Unfortunate, but with JCEII assuring everyone that Joe Mama speaks the truth, who am I to protest?

Burke ~ *rolls eyes again* (lol)

JCEII ~ Though I am just about prepared to "accept" your unfailingly wisdom-laden comments, when you say "Many conservative women have weird "ideas" concerning reality and morality", *whose* concept of what is "weird" are we going by? My neighbor thinks he is married to a 56" tall stuffed giraffe, and insists that because he is the "father" of 37 (and counting as his "wife" is expecting) "children" (read: beanie babies), that he will soon make the Guiness World Book of Records. He thinks he has the perfect family. Should we base "weird" on his concept of reality and morality, yours, ours or what? I wait for your "wisdom".

Burke, *rolls eyes*

Heather, a ticket here is on the way, conditional upon potty training that immaculately conceived baby doll of mine :-)

Brenda, you slay me.

Brenda: You are a diamond among cubic zirconia, fresh rosemary in a world of dehydrated wannabes and your authority in the realms of math, politics, and mango juice is well established.

Jeff: Only if it's frozen.

No, I haven't. My favorite SF writers at the moment are (and they change monthly): Stanislaw Lem, non-pulp P. K. Dick, Sam Delany, Steve Donaldson and Neal Stephenson. I've met the latter three at conventions; very nice people in addition to great writers.

Pick up a copy of Parable of the Talents -- a real page turner!

"Supposedly" meaning "in a fictional context", not uncertainty on my part.

HP: An aggregate of nothing but obligate and fastidiously dependent organisms could not survive by themselves except in stasis.

Some natural viruses can remain "alive" (or, rather, functional, since they're not really living things on a rigorous analysis) but dormant in the open air or in soil almost for an indefinite period--decades at least, we know. Non-host animals can carry viruses in their blood and other bodily fluids for their entire lives--and, if a host comes into proper contact with the non-host and the host is exposed to a high enough concentration, he'll get infected.

As a collection, they would not have the means for self continuation, and therefore cannot form an ecosystem.

I never said they were an ecosystem per se--I meant they're only one if you also take into account their intended hosts: humans. I tend to view the host-virus connection as a special unit; together, the viruses, once unleashed on a human, form an ecosystem in "co-operation" with the human host's resources. Separtely, one virus strain could kill a person; but together, the collection becomes synergetic.

You need to review what a virus is.

You need to stop pretending like you alone know microbiology and virology.

Perhaps you are postulating some other infectious organisms which are not of viral nature.

"Virus" is a very broad term for a number of acellular organisms that require host cells to multiply. That's a basic definition that allows a wide range of organisms to be included under its category. Some consider prions viruses; and some don't consider retroviruses to be classical viruses. The term is just a general division.

I already addressed the fact that sci fi goes beyond present knowledge, but the good stuff does not trample on what is established.

Complete garbage. In one of his FUTURE HISTORY stories (I believe), Heinlein wrote of a future where scientists kind of chuckled at general and special relativity. Tons of SF authors have written about a world where future science has found different principles from the ones we have now (and not all of the new principles are the result intertheoretical reduction).

As for saying 'sci fi': that does not negate my knowledge of the genre. Just shows my age. I was a big fan quite a few years before you were born.

Of course, now there is even a Choice for Men site at http://www.nas.com/c4m. Although initially my reaction was to think "what a bunch of responsibility-dodging losers," a lot of what they say makes sense. After all, why should women be the only ones who get to make choices about the fate of an unplanned child? Why should the woman be the only one who has a "choice" to be a parent or not?

And of course, there's always the flip side to the "choice" issue. What if a woman wants to have an abortion but the baby's father doesn't want his child killed? What if he's even willing to take total custody of the child after it's born, releasing the mother from any further responsibility? Too bad for him. This happened to a very dear friend of mine. The pregnancy was the responsibilty of both him and his girlfriend, but she decided to have an abortion. He was crushed and tried to talk her out of it, but she was determined to go through with it. Luckily (?) she ended up miscarrying before her appointment. My friend didn't have to live with the guilt of being involved in his child's murder. Or rather, in being unable to prevent it. The idea that abortion is just a "women's issue" is ludicrous, and I believe it's just another example of the victim mentality in the US today.

By the way, I had a chance to check out some of your web site. Your list of the good side of being single cracked me up! I also liked your response to the ludicrous view of "Biblical" sex that you found. I was groaning as I read the quote itself, and was pleased to see that you responded pretty much the way I would have.

Keep up the good work, and I look forward to reading the rest of your page when I have time.

Not the number of them alone, no.

because they are dependent upon other organisms for life and reproduction.

In the natural world, yes. The ones of which I spoke jokingly are supposedly artifical. It's theorectically possible to have an ecosystem of viral agents that is self-contained. Such a system does not exist now, but could.

You are describing bacteriophages, apparently.

The fictional viruses have bacteriophagic elements, yes. But they're not BPs per se.

Please name one strain of phage that is, by itself, lethal to humans.

It's _fiction_, O Miss Biohazard Wisdom. Name one macroscopic object that has even broken the light-barrier. That doesn't mean one won't in the future. Confining science to what's currently known in science fiction is called laziness and lack of imagination.

A virus is a fastidious organism, and rather species specific with respect to host preference.

No sh1t. That's why there isn't much species cross-infection among viral pathogens.

Good sci fi writers do a little research before they write.

Calling it "sci-fi" tells me right off that you know little or nothing about real SF.

I dont take solace Norman! I want live births. The fact that 55% of the people are ignorant PROVES the borts are winning the all important TOMA/propaganda war. As long as Republicans are inept, as I have said, the killing will continue. We spen too much time talking about the proceedure, and not the fact that choicists are provedly bold facedly lying on this and how and when. People actually believe THEM, not US, and we are to blame!!!!! If we cant communicate to people that PBA isnt about saving womens health, if people believe its needed for LOTM, and our own "party" the republicans bill contains an UNNEEDED LOTM exception where the brain suck occurs when women simply DONT need that to save their lives, then we CANT WIN. Babies will keep dying until lifers learn that *imaging* is 99.99% of the issue in terms of bannings and restrictions. Our side loses because our side doesnt spend enough time attacking BORTS and their intentions and motives and proving to the public that THEY cant be trusted. Its all about WHO the PUBLIC BELEIVES. Right now, they STILL think its about womens health, womens rights, and LOTM, and avoiding back alley coat hangerings. Uhtil we win there, we cant win the debate on PBA, much less Roe...

So what is my point here? Simply this. I am sick and tired of hearing people who live in their little white-bread worlds sit around and talk about how much help is out there, and who should be helping whom. I'm tired of people who don't know what it's like to need help and not be able to get it sitting around and telling me (and people like JCEIII) that the help is available. When it comes to mental illness, most people would prefer to leave THAT treatment to the faceless government. Believe me, it's a heck of a lot easier for a knocked-up teenager to get help than it is for a mentally ill person. People in general are more sympathetic and less afraid of the immoral than they are of the insane. It's kind of disgusting, really. The people who are mentally ill have done absolutely nothing to cause their problems. But those who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy are, in most cases, 100% responsible for the situation they're in, yet they get the help and the sympathy while us "crazy people" get the shaft. Make sense out of THAT one for me, will ya?

So, Brenda and Sehlat and anyone else who wants to talk about what help is and isn't available, and where people should and shouldn't turn for help, just try to get help for mental illness. Sure, being an unwed mother might not be the most respected station in our society, but it's a hell of a lot better than being someone with a mental health problem!

What does all of this have to do with the abortion issue? Not much, really, but you all started it, so I had to throw in my two cents worth. :-)

Learn the facts and always argue from them, especially when liberal/leftists all too quickly stoop to ad hominem and other fallacious, invalid, irrelevant, specious arguments.
Always join the battle when personal biases are put forth as "facts," unmitigated ignorance as "knowledge," and abject lies as "truth."
Never shrink from the good fight regardless of how frenzied the opposition or how slight your support.
Remember that even if you don't change your opponent's mind, your good, honest arguments and sincere, principled stand will influence those who constitute the generally undecided and uncommitted majority.

No it isnt. We can debate allocation of funds for post borns, but the whole point is that abortion ISNT financial need based. The killers have a choice to do it. Its attitude and morality based, a moral problem like Alan Keyes says. The *parents* are the ones who need to take responsibility both prebirth and postbirth. Financially and otherwise. WIC, TANF, etc. in welfare have literally replaced fathers INSTEAD of holding them accountable for the products of their sexual activity. Real human beings die as a result of this rampant sexual irresponsibility among BOTH SEXES. People dont want to change their sexual habits, and thats the bottom line because every intercourse CAN result in pregnancy, (and everybody knows this, lets be honest!) each woman who inst raped or LOTM (nearly all abortions are conveienence) HAD A CHOICE to allow sperm transfer. She can masturbate or be abstinent UNTIL married and willing to give birth. We USED to do it that way. As reently as the 50's, girls understood no sex until marriage that involved sperm transfer. If they got pg, abortion wasnt an option. You married the father, he had no choice, or if there was no way of making him, you adopted. You didnt ask for the government to fund a single mother home when adoptive parents existed of means! We send the message now directly to women, and indirectly to men, that the state will finanace their threat to abort or abandon children. Unless taxpayers pay, they will *kill.* That isnt much better than the abortion problem itself. Its the lesser of two absolute evils, but its coercively obtained. Thats the whole point. They must take responsibility. Period. Its This "enabling" mindset by even some LIFERS that we must remove the "need" for women to abort is faulty for that reason...

Manly reasons for some abortions...

Whenever a guy does this the woman should smell a rat, buy some cheese for him and not an abortion!

4 stars!

So, I will give a near link. Its a new discussion on Society, Piety, & Noteriety on Brown's Opinion Piece called "Partial Birth Abortion: Republicans are still acting like losers..."

All here please read it and add to the discussion if possible. I know I am going to get flamed over criticizing Republicans and lifers debating skills and packaging of arguments, but we dont seem to ever learn IMHO how to debate this issue on the Hill. We dont focus properly and let them define the terms of debate itself which is why we keep losing. At this rate PBA will be legal forever, and BC will veto with impunity. I feel Clinton lies with impunity in large part DUE to Republican ineptitude at cornering him.

PBA & Republican ineptness

You cant be the first black woman president, BILL CLINTON has already said, IIRC, that *HE* is the first black woman president!!! And the sad part is he actually may believe it!!!! So, you are too late...

Yes Jason, male race traitor! Thats exactly one part of what is FASCIST about the laws, the same ones which make you and me pay child support and even cover gestational bills, and then tell us we have to sit by without anything to say about life we CO-created and must pay for pampers for! Abortion by any sex cant be fair even in mere equal protection laws for men and women. Note you are also defedning the ability of women to evade child support when MEN under law must pay from sex alone. If HE must so must SHE.Thats equality! And you are MALE?? You oughta admire these "conservative feminists" instead of blasting them as a man. If you agreed to equality, you couldnt support abortion because the child dies with no votes, number one, and number two the man involved doesnt. And you call yourself an egalitarian???

Right GRLL'S are WRONG!

I was surfing the net when I stumbled upon a fascist web site. Was this site about the KKK, Hitler, or fascism? No my friends, far worst, FEMINIST CONSERVATIVES! This page depicts male hate and views contradictory to that of an egalitarian society. The ideal of equality is associated with socialism (a society in which everyone is equal), not conservatism (a society based on competition, hierarchies, and inequality). Women in the 19th and 20th century have struggled for equal rights, which they are justly entitled to. The question is where to you draw the line? This site is pro-life, and is against abortions. The women's right to get an abortion is fundamental to their rights of equality, is it not? The verity is, that the woman can make the choice herself, regardless of whether the man wants the baby or not. This is no longer an issue of equality, but one of religion, specifically Christianity. Was Jesus (assumed to have actually existed) a capitalist or a socialist? Jesus in biblical text was a socialist because he believed in the unity of all people. To be truly progressive humans must learn to share, and communicate, not get rich, and see how much they can scam. Sex is irrelevant to any "equal" ideology. Social progress starts when you leave the corruption's of money (which segregates everyone, whether it is by sex, race, or social standing), and learn how to bestow to all. Killing a baby is definitely wrong, but it is also wrong to raise a child in a broken home, or with parents that won't love the child. Stopping sex before marriage is not a viable solution in a secular society. If abortions are banned, then it will be up to the government to provide day care. This means a rise in taxes via the increase of new social services, which goes against conservative ideology. Feminists might have some good ideas; but to many of their views contradict each other. Problem solving must be done with logic, and non-bias. Control your feelings (don't shut them, because apathy is not a solution either), just think clear headed, and maybe then you people will find a progressive way to better society. All you are doing is just adding to that useless struggle of debate, never to be heard, on top of that anthill we call humanity. You don't change society in a day; you start by changing yourself from the inside out!

My previous messages in the guest book were omitted until I complained, since they have magically appeared, I will apologize. P.'S spelling girl "G-R-L-L" doesn't impress anyone! Valium, Ritilan, Prozac and other mind-bending drugs will not stop creatively, originality, and the left!

True Norman. Fact is, choicers ascribe adult traits on children, and consider parental consents unconstitutional WITHOUT judicial bypass, ie, if she cant override notice or consent by a judge, claiming ON HER OWN BEHALF that she understands at age 12 what abortion is, what it will do to her body and mind, LONG TERM, its unthinkable and should be illegal under the constitution. Do we in general consider legal children capable of these things? On tvs Politically Incorrect, I saw a choicer female sit there and say "if the little girl is capable of bearing a child, that is, of becoming pregnant, shes capable and WOMAN biologically, so she OWNS her OWN BODY, only she can decide what to do with it!"

Now, what OTHER THINGS logically does this lead to defending if one were consistent in this so-called "logic" ? Think of things that come to mind that you would ALSO have to defend to be consistently even-handed in your argument that would have to enjoy the same state protection. Is it possible for these to exist simultaneously? I think not. Its a fascinating condridiction...

First theres a link between abortion and crime, and now between tough antiabortion laws and child care monies! More "lifers dont care about post borns just fetuses, and we are cruel to women once they give birth! I smell a rat! And the newspapers report this prochoice slantededly, a study whose very premise is a prochoice LIE, uncritically, and just recently the same paper reported that "the neccessity of PBA is hotly debated, some saying its needed and some not"

Norman:

"Prussen-Razzano pointed out that the loss of an unborn child affects a mother no less deeply than the loss of a born child would if he or she were murdered.

What about dad? It amazes me, that while I have mixed feelings on this bill, and am almost forced to support it on "better than nothing grounds" even as a staunch literally no-exceptions lifer, that not one person notices the same hypocrisy I keep noting. This bill is sexism at its worse. For hours on c-span I watched as BOTH sides defended a WOMANS choice to keep her child, while ignoring a MANS. Actually ridiculing it in BOTH directions, in fact. Worse, both sides, not just lifers noted this "fundamental right"-for WOMEN ONLY. Now, before anyone jumps on me let me say I DONT support violence against women or pregnant ones by ANYONE. I am 100% pro-motherhood! Then again, I am also 100% pro-fatherhood. Months ago, on the Jerry Hughes show, I noted how "choice" was erroding a womans choice to birth, which was true, but its comparatively rare, at least, to the reverse of women aborting, committing violence and removing a child from their father. Why isnt this a crime punishable by life in jail for women? Like I told Carolyn Gargaro on the show, about this kind of thing which I brought up, I LOATHE the thought of women's BIRTHING rights, true reproductive rights, being abridged, which makes it harder to convey my point in this entry. The trouble is, if its a human life, and in the republican bill the crime is homicide against that, the MOTHER would HAVE to be included. Period. Otherwise, and aslo (no especially!) under the Lofgren plan, the charge actually logically MUST be limited to assault. I would like it to be more serious, but its discrimination against men if its passed as is. I would be fine with supporting this bill, if only it werent so sexist and one way. I believe in real equal protection. A bill that *reinforces* the idea that children are at will the disposable property of the mother is NOT really ideally, or dare I say if at all, prolife. A true motherhood sanctity bill wouldnt exempt abortion and worse, even hypocritically condemn fathers who are denied their babies at the same time for trying to unilaterally enforce his choice on her when she refused regular abortion while passing on abortion. If this bill passes, women's power of choice is now absolute even for rare beatings unlikely to induce miscarriage WHILE they already had a right to refuse abortion demands from the child's father. It seems nobody can get enough of female choice, but nobody will entertain ANY choice for men in any direction here! The concept of ANY woman ever getting this done to her, is seen as more important than 30%+ of fathers being aborted on at will against their wishes LEGALLY at present! This bill gives women a HANDS DOWN UNDISPUTED UNDILUTED license to kill, wheras before, both sides admitted the question of WHEN life began was open to debate. At least legally. I dont believe that, but law at least thought so which was at least semi-consistent with abortion laws. Both bill versions, like the VAWA (HCR182) on steriods, sets up women as a special class deserving absolute power and rights even more than Roe did. As such it cannot satisfy equal protection/treatment even remotely of the founding fathers documents. Its unconstitutional. And amazingly, *neither* side notices this! Or cares! How about real, honest debate?

AGE: Dunno. Mommy and daddy never told me.

POLITICAL AFFILIATION: None. I believe in no laws against nothing and think I should be allowed to steal stuff without getting the cops called on me. If there wasn’t any cops, that wouldn’t be a problem. So, I’m not with any party really since none of them are for my right to steal. I like to get my stuff the really old fashioned way—just take it!

HOBBIES: I like stealing hubcaps off of cars in the Johova’s Witness parking lot behind my house, washing my hair in gutter water and having long conversations with the eight family dogs while we relieve ourselves in the back yard.

POLITICAL PET PEEVE: Those who think stealing is, like, bad. If nobody ever stole anything, nobody would have nothing!

BOOKS I RECOMMEND: The Bible. It’s full of people ripping stuff off—like all them Jews just taking their land from all them pagans! Way to go Koshers!

FAVORITE MUSIC: Death metal. I love any song that mentions blood-drinking and the "gas-pipe escape."

MY ASPIRATIONS: To steal a space-heater for the carport. Squatting down out there in winter freezes my buns!

MY TAKE ON ABORTION: Abortion is wrong. Infants are, like, $1000 a piece on the black market, and abortion destroys infants that I might otherwise steal and sell! Duh!

ROLE MODELS & HEROES: My mommy Sianis and my brother Boobie. Mommy taught me how to be a woman when I was young, and Boobie taught me the same thing again in the carport last month.

COMMENT: Come on, people—stealing is not bad! It’s a part of our society! Just get used to it. I mean, you can buy new stuff, can’t you?

One more thing:

Imagine if a GUY was in class, and defended forced abortion on women, because men shouldnt have to financial slaves for 18 years, we are not mere sperm donors for womens use to make kids. Then a girl says "hey, thats not fair, etc." and he gets mad, calls her a female chauvinist oppressor sow, loudly, violently harshly slaps her so much she is knocked from her chair to the ground, and starts kicking her????? But in Joyce's sons case, did ANYBODY do anything but watch, and possibly laugh and snicker? I dont know. But I dont mean the teacher asking her politely to leave and giving HIM the "option" of staying. Heck he was the assaulted one, not HER!!! I bet he couldda been hit 45 times and nobody would do anything. In fact theyd blame him for being beaten up by a girl, proving he was a wimp!!!!

Because society doesnt view women as *equally culpable* moral agents, I have been saying this in abortion for ages. Each time a woman does something like this and ISNT punished, she gets the idea that if women do something wrong, its not as bad as when men do it, or its excusable based on her being "just a girl" etc. I say sue the feminazi!

-[(-P V Q) & (Q > R)] V -(PA - R) That's my witty retort, in symbolic logic.

Where did I say the high wagers were WORTH more as HUMAN BEINGS??? The higher wagers WORKPLACE SKILLS are seen by that marketplace as being worth more pay, not the person. All life is of equal merit to live and better oneself. I dont define a *persons* worth by their job skills, but I WOULD, if the president of, say, a web development company, hire somebody to build corporate websites with knowledge of CGI, Javascript, etc., by hand, over somebody who knows only MS Frontpage98. Because the SKILL and specialized knowledge is GREATER, and valued in the marketplace due to supply and demand, etc., simple marketplace economics, they will command a higher salary. The same firm may have a janitor, his *life* is worth as much as the head designer, but his job skills to clean the halls do not equal the guy we pay big bucks to set up those clients of ours with hi-tech bells and whistles on their site, which is our principle income-getting business! So, the janitor isnt going to get the same amount of money for his job as we give to the code geek nerd who is our livelyhood bread and butter...

Pinny, its CHOICERS who apply this in spades multiple triplicate, in abortion. The woman is the beginning, the ending, the only etitity. Only her *sometimes* misguided (pro-choice) wants, needs, opinions, etc., are seen as mattering. How "eilitist" is that??? How classicist is that??? How racism (by race selective abortions) or sexism (by sex selective abortions) or even Eugenics is that-by some babies being wanted and living and others not being genetically desirable being mudered???The baby is treated like their very right to merely LIVE is meaningless. The father is treated like he doesnt even EXIST! How can any "choicer" say stuff like this with a straight face???? Ahhhh, Liberals..."my mind is made up, dont confuse me with the facts!"

You are sounding like a male version of Wendy, another poster here, "Pinhead" (not an insult-its your other nick...)

> Anyway, I do not advocate murder. Perhaps I should ask the pro life people why they don't also advocate free housing for the poor,

Because thats more bad money after bad! We want FATHERS to be paying for this, IN THE HOME, and doing their job. The goverenment isnt a nipple, its not a babysitter, thats the parents job. We cant make me and give men self respect by taking it out of their hands, and thats what that approach DOES, John Calvin!

>10 dollars an hour for cleaning toilets and washing dishes,

Money in free markets matches worth on skill, you dont get ten bucks an hour for unskilled labor, mr. socialist! That just reinforces the something for nuttin hand out mentality we want to get rid of!

> less expensive food and free health care for the BORN. . .

Socialized medicine??? Hillary??? Pulleeaze. We cant use gov as a substitute father. We need to place fathers in charge and EXPECT they will will comply. We used to have no trouble geting them to, until the law took away their rights, humilating them and taking away their pride and dignity by woman signs only abortion laws and WIC, etc. They have no incentive to father. The women dont ave any to name them because they feel they get more from gov than HIM. The gov and liberals work against two parent solvent families. Thats no solution to a problem thats LASTING. It leads to even greater poverty and dependency on GOV, and not on families and churches like it should be!

>yes why do you have an AFFAIR with the fetus? Is the fetus thus more important than the people who outside of the womb?

They are AS important, not MORE important. People outside the womb can defend themselves and get jobs, a child helpless cant protect themselves from murder by bigger stronger adults unless the law is on their side to advocate them, and thats what lifers do, advocate kids.

>Why do you like the survival of the fittest?

You, an abortion supporter are the last person who has a right to say this, you guys live this "philosophy" daily in abortion clinics that kill babies...

It is NOT a matter of condoning out or wedlock births. It is a question of SOCEITAL EXPECTATIONS on FATHERS. In the 50's the man HAD to marry her, and she was expected to comply, we need to return to those old fashioned values, they help children alot more than they harm them. You keep EXCUSING MEN. If the woman isnt married off, whose fault is it often that that happens? Why not take the same zeal to problem solve using abortion violence against the unborn, and turn that on MEN to pay up and act like MEN like they usually used to do back a few years ago, when any man who ran WASNT EXCUSED but was EXPECTED to marry the girl he got pregnant? Isnt it funny how for many such men today, abortion is a "safety net"? They dont want to give up their ability to have free uncommitted sex at womens expense, so they support abortion instead of learning to mix formula. Why should WOMEN have to suffer, and be threatened and blackmailed into being legally raped on a table and scarred for LIFE, so that men can blame it all on them and not pay? Men are passing the buck, they are placating women with bad alternatives to the only GOOD one, which is them quiting whining and start acting like MEN, which means supporting BIRTH, not abortion! You cant in any case say that killing a child is better than them being born fatherless. The solution is to try to put the father IN the home, not to throw the baby out with the bathwater and kill them! Even if he DOES run and CANT be, for whatever reason, brought into line, thats not good enough reason to MURDER BABY. The child is not responsible for its father actions. You are noting a possible suffering or a child, and wanting to KILL THEM as a compassionate response. The problems you spoke of will only go away or otherwise be minimized by head on problem solving, not running away as in abortion culture. This same idea was voiced by another prochoice male I know, in real life, who said: "well too many babies there aint enough people to adopt em so what are ya gonna do, we must kill them its the lesser of two evils!" Its not! Its the GREATER of two evils! It encourages not problem solving, but evasion of the real causal issues that lead to the disadvantaged youths! You cant throw bad money after bad, as in abortion, and expect it will make things better, it only makes it WORSE...

Many arent fit because legally and socially, we dont respect fathers from day one, look at abortion laws that are unilaterally framed to require only the woman sign. That disrepecrs fathers from day one. It makes it impossible for men to see the rewards in fathering and/or being responsible when they see no support system is there for fathers. Further, by allowing abortion, you are ENDORSING and EXCUSING deadbeat dads! Instead of making the men grow up and act responsible, you are dumping the burdon on women alone to go in, get sucked out and bear the pain and humilation that, as you say "many men *TODAY* (the keyword here is "today") arent fit because proaborts like YOU come along and excuse them, when in the 50's theyd have no CHOICE but to marry the girl and get a job to pay for a baby, not a quick abortion. Each time some MALE supports abortion, I smell a rat. I smell a bigger rat each time one of them whiffs some cheese by talking about how "men today arent fit to be fathers!" as though THAT excuses abortion, is a message to women that men wont pay so they better be good girls and get vaccuumed out so HE doesnt have to be bothered by "HER problem" and smelly diapers. Its not women who get themselves pregnant, its men. Better learn to change some diapers. You are a bachelor, you say, but you also exhibit the classic "Playboy" (magazine) ideal mindset responsible for millions of child murders. Incidentally, this embarrassing (to all good men) attitude WRT to responsibility exhibited by your messages, only sadly validates Gargaro's other piece, which is your disgrace to the male race anti-woman female emotional manipulation/battering take, personified:

Manly reasons for some women's abortions

You imply that abortion is "needed" to combat unwanted, unloved, unpaid for babies. The trouble is, you *cant* predict with ANY reliability WHAT will happen to those babies can you? Even if we accepted the "poor" argument (a disguised appeal to pity logical fallacy) NOBODY knows WHAT WILL happen (you can just speculate wildy) to those children not aborted because their moms lacked access and rights and would have aborted them had they. The reasons? 1) Adoption. 2) She marries another man who becomes the in effect of adopts to become the legal father and he pays for the child as if it were his biologically. 3) You never even ASKED what the status was in any given abortion *OF* the biological father. What happens in abortion? We know it has FORSEEABLE effects, unlike the ones you gave in favor of abortion. A baby DIES. Brutally. EACH TIME. How can a child's quality of life get worse than being murdered? If each child lives, many chances exist for a better life. Abortion=NO CHANCE. Who are YOU to sit in and judge that they are so poor/unwanted they might be better of dead? Whether you realize it or not, your arguments reek with this sentiment...

"Ok what arrangement would you like to make right now to ensure conveinence abortions, where the guy hasnt ran and will take the child even and pay 100% dont keep occuring? How about THOSE men have veto power over abortions, instead of having no rights as the baby WONT be abandoned? He is NOT a "runner" or a deadbeat dad.!"

The response? "No, its her body her choice! Men are such control freaks! He has nothing to say until he grows a uterus!!!"

IOW, what the proabort CLAIMED she felt and what she actually BELEIVED internally, when not preaching to fence sitters to make herself look honest, were two different things. First she claimed they were only aborted because women "needed" it due to economic pressures, men wont pay or be fathers, etc. Then, when we discussed making laws to allow for ones NOT dumped that WOULD be paid for and parented, the arguments just morph into "her body her choice".

Anything to support ELECTIVE abortion ON DEMAND e.g. for any reason!

If borts were honest, they wouldnt do this routinely. If borts CARED about WOMEN, theyd work to correct pregnancy discrimination and enforce child support and involve fathers. If they cared about not letting pregnancy get in the way of their lives, they would make society accomodate WOMEN and their gestational needs instead of expecting them to be sucked out to satisfy US. The surest sign of women succumbing to abuse is when women feel they NEED (as opposed to chose!) abortion. That they NEED abortions to get/keep jobs as well as men to acheive economic parity. When what they SHOULD be doing is to erase sexual discrimination based on pregnancies and to expect and enforce support for the pregnancy instead of "getting rid of it" which only proves she wasnt liberated after all, but a slave to a misogynist culture that thinks all women are abortable commerical property!

Jesus also said lots of other stuff, like how true believers can handle snakes and drink poison without being affected. So, I'm prepared to give short shift to much of anything he has to say.

Nearly all of our scientific knowledge amounts to theories: relativity, quantum mechanics, our conception of atoms and their workings--all these things are imperfect theories, and could be falsified any day. It was only a little over a century ago that Lord Kelvin expressed that he was more certain of the existence of ether than of anything else in the world; but ether does not exist. It's possible that atomic theory, relativity or any other postulation of science could go the way of ether in the future. We can know nothing about the world with absolute certainty. But we don't go around wanting to not teach QM because "it's only a theory." The real reason many object to evolution being taught is not because it's an imperfect theory but that it contradicts their religious beliefs. Really it takes a leap of faith, ;-) to accept macro-evolution as fact.

By that token, it also takes a leap of faith to accept most other scientific knowledge. After all, it's all just theories.

So what was I supposed to do? Nowadays, according to the prevailing (ahem) "logic," I'm justified in taking a semi-automatic weapon to the grounds of the school and murdering my classmates?

Pa-lease! The thought never crossed my mind! I detested violence, even when I was forced to raise my hands against it. It still made me sick to my stomach afterwards.

Many thanks to all those that carried on at THD and TGP in fine form while I was away. We had a good holiday, and this sunburn-prone momma even managed a tan!

If you're sincerely seeking the truth about abortion, you won't find it in horror stories. Look to ethics instead.