"RogerN" wrote in message
m...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"HH&C" wrote in message
...
On Feb 2, 11:46 am, " wrote:
On Feb 1, 10:10 pm, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

The other nine most Democratic states are Rhode Island,
Massachusetts,
Maryland, Vermont, Hawaii, New York, Illinois, Connecticut and
Delaware. Each of the top 10 Democratic states had more than a 22
percentage point party affiliation advantage for the Democrats.

Massachusetts? Sure didn't get Martha Coakley elected there in a
recent statewide election against Scott Brown, did it?
Wake up. The masses are rejecting liberalism and liberals - if they
haven't already. Even in Massachusetts.

Yep. The masses are rejecting liberal Republicans, too.

Scott Brown supports a woman's right to abortion; he opposes having the
federal government ban gay marriage; and, having lived on welfare as a
child, he's "moderate" on that issue. He supports the Massachusetts
universal health care insurance plan that forces residents to buy
insurance.

Sure, Massachusetts rejected a liberal Republican. Right. The Republicans
might find they should have supported Coakley. g

--
Ed Huntress

Brown supports the woman's right to kill the baby inside her but not the
taxpayer funding of it.

There's a moral dilemma for a libertarian Christian, eh? A libertarian
Christian must be something like a conservative corn farmer living on
subsidies. g

People on the inside of Planned Parenthood came out and told that they
said they wanted to push abortions because that's where the money is.

Which people? I happen to know the former head of the New York and San
Fransisco chapters of Planned Parenthood. I can assure you that the money
has nothing to do with it for her or her associates.

Obama wants to give taxpayer money to fund Planned Parenthood for profit.
Many Americans are against killing innocent babies and don't want to fund
it with their tax money.

I wouldn't, either, if anyone were killing babies. Evangelical Christians
seem to have lost their minds around 150 years ago. They used to know
better.

Many others are for killing babies but don't want taxpayers to fund it.
Obamacare and Planned Parenthood want to kill babies because that's where
the money is and I'll bet Obama got or will get a portion of those
dollars.

RogerN

You're deep into the paranoia gig, Roger. Your superstitious views on
abortion have nothing to do with historical Christian doctrine. They're more
like Voodoo than Christianity.

As for your paranoia, here's some good bedtime reading that you should
absorb and think about:

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/conspir...oid_style.html

--
Ed Huntress

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"HH&C" wrote in message
...
On Feb 2, 11:46 am, " wrote:
On Feb 1, 10:10 pm, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

The other nine most Democratic states are Rhode Island,
Massachusetts,
Maryland, Vermont, Hawaii, New York, Illinois, Connecticut and
Delaware. Each of the top 10 Democratic states had more than a 22
percentage point party affiliation advantage for the Democrats.

Massachusetts? Sure didn't get Martha Coakley elected there in a
recent statewide election against Scott Brown, did it?
Wake up. The masses are rejecting liberalism and liberals - if they
haven't already. Even in Massachusetts.

Yep. The masses are rejecting liberal Republicans, too.

Scott Brown supports a woman's right to abortion; he opposes having the
federal government ban gay marriage; and, having lived on welfare as a
child, he's "moderate" on that issue. He supports the Massachusetts
universal health care insurance plan that forces residents to buy
insurance.

Sure, Massachusetts rejected a liberal Republican. Right. The
Republicans might find they should have supported Coakley. g

--
Ed Huntress

Brown supports the woman's right to kill the baby inside her but not the
taxpayer funding of it.

There's a moral dilemma for a libertarian Christian, eh? A libertarian
Christian must be something like a conservative corn farmer living on
subsidies. g

People on the inside of Planned Parenthood came out and told that they
said they wanted to push abortions because that's where the money is.

Which people? I happen to know the former head of the New York and San
Fransisco chapters of Planned Parenthood. I can assure you that the money
has nothing to do with it for her or her associates.

Abby Johnson, former affiliate director for Planned Parenthood
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115476

You picked an interesting one -- as of course I suspected you would. g
This amazing "conversion" occurred just days after she said this on a talk
radio show:

" [O]n Sept. 20, Johnson told of death threats "targeted at me and my
husband and my daughter" and being followed in her car. What's more, on the
day of Tiller's murder, her husband begged and pleaded for her not to leave
the house, she said. She also spoke of the "harassing things" the entire
staff would receive in the mail, the neighborhood-wide mailers activists
sent out announcing employees as "abortionists" and the picket lines in
front of workers' homes. "It's very scary," she said, "this group of people
that claim to be these peaceful prayer warriors, or whatever they call
themselves, it's kind of ironic that some of them would be sending death
threats."

Seven days later, on another talk radio show, she said this:

"on Sept. 27...she raised the issue of death threats: "They involve my
daughter and my husband, so it's ironic that these people who call
themselves pro-life are sending death threats."

Eight days after that, she resigned from Planned Parenthood. Quite a
"conversion," eh?

"Only 3 percent of all health services provided by Planned Parenthood are
abortion. Of course, Johnson knows this as well as anybody. In fact, she
cited this very statistic in one of her radio interviews in September. In
response, the host asked: "So, it's really not that much." She responded:
"No ... we think 3 percent is a very small amount."

That's what the supposed "profitability" is based on, Roger: 3% of Planned
Parenthood's business. Abby Johnson has since appeared on O'Reilly; she
apparently has a paid job with the "Coalition for Life" (she had been on a
"performance improvement plan" at PP; in other words, she was on her way out
anyway); and she's well on her way to a new career as a media darling.

Your other "cites" doubtless are as vacuous and as distorted as this one.
When you cite something from WorldNutDaily, you really aren't worth
debating. Only nuts like Gunner believe anything they say.


Obama wants to give taxpayer money to fund Planned Parenthood for
profit. Many Americans are against killing innocent babies and don't
want to fund it with their tax money.

I wouldn't, either, if anyone were killing babies. Evangelical Christians
seem to have lost their minds around 150 years ago. They used to know
better.

What are these:

Stupid. We saw them before. You should get yourself some new material.

(you can skip the first ~4 minutes of preaching)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MMzMiSZelg
This shouldn't bother anyone since they are not killing babies

Many others are for killing babies but don't want taxpayers to fund it.
Obamacare and Planned Parenthood want to kill babies because that's
where the money is and I'll bet Obama got or will get a portion of those
dollars.

RogerN

You're deep into the paranoia gig, Roger. Your superstitious views on
abortion have nothing to do with historical Christian doctrine. They're
more like Voodoo than Christianity.

As for your paranoia, here's some good bedtime reading that you should
absorb and think about:

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/conspir...oid_style.html

--
Ed Huntress

In these days we have scientific things like ultrasound where they can
watch the baby fighting for its life while being pulled apart.

So would an earthworm. And they knew these things 1600 years ago, when St.
Augustine formulated his doctrine of "delayed ensoulment," and again in the
13th Century, when Thomas Aquinas elaborated it. There was no mystery about
fetuses, nor that they would normally develop, be born, and become babies.
The dividing line was one of purely theological superstition -- as it is
today.

Also now we have many better forms of birth control that wasn't available
150 years ago. So, for savages to act like savages is normal but today
the liberals act like savages. Why use birth control when you can just
rip the living infant from its mothers womb and throw it away? The
Democrats need to get rid of their 150 year old outdated dogma and get up
to date with science.

It's YOUR dogma that's based on a theological superstition that was made up
out of thin air.


But, while we are on the topic, why is it woman's choice?

Because it's her body, not yours.

A man and a woman both choose to have sex, except rape or similar, but if
the woman gets pregnant she alone has the choice to abort, keep, or put up
for adoption.

And she has the burden. You don't. That's why it's easy for you to impose
your tyranny on her body. It's none of your business.

The man has no say, why can't he just pay his share of the abortion fee
and have no further obligation for the child if he doesn't want to be a
father?

That's pretty much how it works for a lot of people. They'll share the cost
of the abortion, and he has no further obligation.

Because it's about the money, they want someone to pay for the child even
though it is only the woman's choice. It doesn't even mater if the person
that pays support is the Childs father or not, the liberals are just
wanting to extracting money from anyone they can.

This is a stupid conclusion. If the birth isn't wanted and a child is born,
someone else usually DOES have to pay.


So, while I believe abortion is murder, the people getting them are those
that believe in abortion. Darwinism at its finest!

It has nothing to do with it. You're cooking up justifications in your head
for an indefensible idea. You have some personal gripes in this area, I
realize, but it looks like it's twisted your thinking into a self-serving
tyranny over the bodies of women.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"HH&C" wrote in message
...
On Feb 2, 11:46 am, " wrote:
On Feb 1, 10:10 pm, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

The other nine most Democratic states are Rhode Island,
Massachusetts,
Maryland, Vermont, Hawaii, New York, Illinois, Connecticut and
Delaware. Each of the top 10 Democratic states had more than a 22
percentage point party affiliation advantage for the Democrats.

Massachusetts? Sure didn't get Martha Coakley elected there in a
recent statewide election against Scott Brown, did it?
Wake up. The masses are rejecting liberalism and liberals - if they
haven't already. Even in Massachusetts.

Yep. The masses are rejecting liberal Republicans, too.

Scott Brown supports a woman's right to abortion; he opposes having
the federal government ban gay marriage; and, having lived on welfare
as a child, he's "moderate" on that issue. He supports the
Massachusetts universal health care insurance plan that forces
residents to buy insurance.

Sure, Massachusetts rejected a liberal Republican. Right. The
Republicans might find they should have supported Coakley. g

--
Ed Huntress

Brown supports the woman's right to kill the baby inside her but not
the taxpayer funding of it.

There's a moral dilemma for a libertarian Christian, eh? A libertarian
Christian must be something like a conservative corn farmer living on
subsidies. g

People on the inside of Planned Parenthood came out and told that they
said they wanted to push abortions because that's where the money is.

Which people? I happen to know the former head of the New York and San
Fransisco chapters of Planned Parenthood. I can assure you that the
money has nothing to do with it for her or her associates.

Abby Johnson, former affiliate director for Planned Parenthood
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115476

You picked an interesting one -- as of course I suspected you would. g
This amazing "conversion" occurred just days after she said this on a talk
radio show:

" [O]n Sept. 20, Johnson told of death threats "targeted at me and my
husband and my daughter" and being followed in her car. What's more, on
the day of Tiller's murder, her husband begged and pleaded for her not to
leave the house, she said. She also spoke of the "harassing things" the
entire staff would receive in the mail, the neighborhood-wide mailers
activists sent out announcing employees as "abortionists" and the picket
lines in front of workers' homes. "It's very scary," she said, "this group
of people that claim to be these peaceful prayer warriors, or whatever
they call themselves, it's kind of ironic that some of them would be
sending death threats."

Seven days later, on another talk radio show, she said this:

"on Sept. 27...she raised the issue of death threats: "They involve my
daughter and my husband, so it's ironic that these people who call
themselves pro-life are sending death threats."

Eight days after that, she resigned from Planned Parenthood. Quite a
"conversion," eh?

Pretty bad if it's true. I can understand her wanting out of Planned
Parrenthood if her family is being threatened, but why doesn't Planned
Parenthood sue her for claiming they push abortion because that's where the
money is? If a group harassed me to quit my job the last thing I would do
is join them.

"Only 3 percent of all health services provided by Planned Parenthood are
abortion. Of course, Johnson knows this as well as anybody. In fact, she
cited this very statistic in one of her radio interviews in September. In
response, the host asked: "So, it's really not that much." She responded:
"No ... we think 3 percent is a very small amount."

Maybe 3% of the services is 70% of the profit?
List of services:
1. Provide Abortion
2. Provide Abortion Counseling
3. Provide Family Planning by Abortion brochure
4. Provide Information on how to pay for an Abortion
5. Provide "Abortions are fun" brochure

In my little list of 5 thing only one was to actually provide abortions, I
could say that Abortion was just 20% of the services even though it would be
where the money was at. If I listed 95 more BS services I could say
Abortion was only 1% of the services. I'd just have to provide abortions
and 99 pamphlets to persuade people to get an abortion.

That's what the supposed "profitability" is based on, Roger: 3% of Planned
Parenthood's business. Abby Johnson has since appeared on O'Reilly; she
apparently has a paid job with the "Coalition for Life" (she had been on a
"performance improvement plan" at PP; in other words, she was on her way
out anyway); and she's well on her way to a new career as a media darling.

Your other "cites" doubtless are as vacuous and as distorted as this one.
When you cite something from WorldNutDaily, you really aren't worth
debating. Only nuts like Gunner believe anything they say.


Obama wants to give taxpayer money to fund Planned Parenthood for
profit. Many Americans are against killing innocent babies and don't
want to fund it with their tax money.

I wouldn't, either, if anyone were killing babies. Evangelical
Christians seem to have lost their minds around 150 years ago. They used
to know better.

What are these:

Stupid. We saw them before. You should get yourself some new material.

So, seeing them more than once changes what they are? Actually tonight was
the first time I saw that video, the others were similar but I thought that
was a bit more graphic. They sure did look like parts butchered human
babies, glad they weren't.

(you can skip the first ~4 minutes of preaching)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MMzMiSZelg
This shouldn't bother anyone since they are not killing babies

Many others are for killing babies but don't want taxpayers to fund it.
Obamacare and Planned Parenthood want to kill babies because that's
where the money is and I'll bet Obama got or will get a portion of
those dollars.

RogerN

You're deep into the paranoia gig, Roger. Your superstitious views on
abortion have nothing to do with historical Christian doctrine. They're
more like Voodoo than Christianity.

As for your paranoia, here's some good bedtime reading that you should
absorb and think about:

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/conspir...oid_style.html

--
Ed Huntress

In these days we have scientific things like ultrasound where they can
watch the baby fighting for its life while being pulled apart.

So would an earthworm. And they knew these things 1600 years ago, when St.
Augustine formulated his doctrine of "delayed ensoulment," and again in
the 13th Century, when Thomas Aquinas elaborated it. There was no mystery
about fetuses, nor that they would normally develop, be born, and become
babies. The dividing line was one of purely theological superstition -- as
it is today.

I can't help what Augustine formulated but back in the old testament God
said he knew people from their mothers womb.

Also now we have many better forms of birth control that wasn't available
150 years ago. So, for savages to act like savages is normal but today
the liberals act like savages. Why use birth control when you can just
rip the living infant from its mothers womb and throw it away? The
Democrats need to get rid of their 150 year old outdated dogma and get up
to date with science.

It's YOUR dogma that's based on a theological superstition that was made
up out of thin air.

What is your claim? If it's a superstition, not a human baby, then a person
shouldn't be charged with a double murder for murdering a pregnant woman.
If it's a human baby if someone else murders it, then it is also a human
baby if the mother murders it. Abortion is killing a baby, those who
perform abortions are baby killers. It doesn't matter that they twisted
laws to say one thing in one case and something else in another case, the
object is the same in each case.

But, while we are on the topic, why is it woman's choice?

Because it's her body, not yours.

Then why should my tax money be used to pay for it?

A man and a woman both choose to have sex, except rape or similar, but if
the woman gets pregnant she alone has the choice to abort, keep, or put
up for adoption.

And she has the burden. You don't. That's why it's easy for you to impose
your tyranny on her body. It's none of your business.

But Obama wants the taxpayer to pay for her burden and her decision for the
choice she imposes on the taxpayer.

The man has no say, why can't he just pay his share of the abortion fee
and have no further obligation for the child if he doesn't want to be a
father?

That's pretty much how it works for a lot of people. They'll share the
cost of the abortion, and he has no further obligation.

Unless she decides to not get the abortion, then the father, or any man they
pin it on, pays a large chunk of his income until the child gets out of
college.

Because it's about the money, they want someone to pay for the child even
though it is only the woman's choice. It doesn't even mater if the
person that pays support is the Childs father or not, the liberals are
just wanting to extracting money from anyone they can.

This is a stupid conclusion. If the birth isn't wanted and a child is
born, someone else usually DOES have to pay.

Yes, anyone they can pin it on, you can have scientific DNA proof that
you're not the father and be put in jail if you don't pay child support for
someone elses child.

So, while I believe abortion is murder, the people getting them are those
that believe in abortion. Darwinism at its finest!

It has nothing to do with it. You're cooking up justifications in your
head for an indefensible idea. You have some personal gripes in this area,
I realize, but it looks like it's twisted your thinking into a
self-serving tyranny over the bodies of women.

--
Ed Huntress

If a woman wants an abortion and is going to get it one way or another, I
would prefer she be able to get one legally from a doctor than from a
knitting needle. But I don't think taxpayers should pay for it. Being it
is her body, her decision, and no one else's, why should it be someone
else's expense? Obama said is should be between the woman and her doctor,
since it's none of my business, why should I pay for it with my tax money?

RogerN

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"HH&C" wrote in message
...
On Feb 2, 11:46 am, " wrote:
On Feb 1, 10:10 pm, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

The other nine most Democratic states are Rhode Island,
Massachusetts,
Maryland, Vermont, Hawaii, New York, Illinois, Connecticut and
Delaware. Each of the top 10 Democratic states had more than a 22
percentage point party affiliation advantage for the Democrats.

Massachusetts? Sure didn't get Martha Coakley elected there in a
recent statewide election against Scott Brown, did it?
Wake up. The masses are rejecting liberalism and liberals - if they
haven't already. Even in Massachusetts.

Yep. The masses are rejecting liberal Republicans, too.

Scott Brown supports a woman's right to abortion; he opposes having
the federal government ban gay marriage; and, having lived on welfare
as a child, he's "moderate" on that issue. He supports the
Massachusetts universal health care insurance plan that forces
residents to buy insurance.

Sure, Massachusetts rejected a liberal Republican. Right. The
Republicans might find they should have supported Coakley. g

--
Ed Huntress

Brown supports the woman's right to kill the baby inside her but not
the taxpayer funding of it.

There's a moral dilemma for a libertarian Christian, eh? A libertarian
Christian must be something like a conservative corn farmer living on
subsidies. g

People on the inside of Planned Parenthood came out and told that they
said they wanted to push abortions because that's where the money is.

Which people? I happen to know the former head of the New York and San
Fransisco chapters of Planned Parenthood. I can assure you that the
money has nothing to do with it for her or her associates.

Abby Johnson, former affiliate director for Planned Parenthood
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115476

You picked an interesting one -- as of course I suspected you would. g
This amazing "conversion" occurred just days after she said this on a
talk radio show:

" [O]n Sept. 20, Johnson told of death threats "targeted at me and my
husband and my daughter" and being followed in her car. What's more, on
the day of Tiller's murder, her husband begged and pleaded for her not to
leave the house, she said. She also spoke of the "harassing things" the
entire staff would receive in the mail, the neighborhood-wide mailers
activists sent out announcing employees as "abortionists" and the picket
lines in front of workers' homes. "It's very scary," she said, "this
group of people that claim to be these peaceful prayer warriors, or
whatever they call themselves, it's kind of ironic that some of them
would be sending death threats."

Seven days later, on another talk radio show, she said this:

"on Sept. 27...she raised the issue of death threats: "They involve my
daughter and my husband, so it's ironic that these people who call
themselves pro-life are sending death threats."

Eight days after that, she resigned from Planned Parenthood. Quite a
"conversion," eh?

Pretty bad if it's true.

Roger, are you suggesting that I would misrepresent a quote? g If you have
the patience for it, here's the one from Sept. 20th:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/informa...tember-20-2009

For the one from Sept. 27th, go he

http://www.livestream.com/fairandfem...8-6b7c32b50925

I hope you have patience. g The Sept. 27th interview, in light of what
she's said since, is worth listening to. There's a woman with very flexible
"principles."

I can understand her wanting out of Planned Parrenthood if her family is
being threatened, but why doesn't Planned Parenthood sue her for claiming
they push abortion because that's where the money is? If a group harassed
me to quit my job the last thing I would do is join them.

You'd have to ask them. They generally avoid publicity, but I don't know in
this case.


"Only 3 percent of all health services provided by Planned Parenthood are
abortion. Of course, Johnson knows this as well as anybody. In fact, she
cited this very statistic in one of her radio interviews in September. In
response, the host asked: "So, it's really not that much." She responded:
"No ... we think 3 percent is a very small amount."

Maybe 3% of the services is 70% of the profit?

Why would you think that? Because you're looking under every possible rock
to support something you want to believe? Or because you have some reason to
believe it?

List of services:
1. Provide Abortion
2. Provide Abortion Counseling
3. Provide Family Planning by Abortion brochure
4. Provide Information on how to pay for an Abortion
5. Provide "Abortions are fun" brochure

In my little list of 5 thing only one was to actually provide abortions, I
could say that Abortion was just 20% of the services even though it would
be where the money was at. If I listed 95 more BS services I could say
Abortion was only 1% of the services. I'd just have to provide abortions
and 99 pamphlets to persuade people to get an abortion.

It's amazing how creative you can be when you don't want to believe
something.


That's what the supposed "profitability" is based on, Roger: 3% of
Planned Parenthood's business. Abby Johnson has since appeared on
O'Reilly; she apparently has a paid job with the "Coalition for Life"
(she had been on a "performance improvement plan" at PP; in other words,
she was on her way out anyway); and she's well on her way to a new career
as a media darling.

Your other "cites" doubtless are as vacuous and as distorted as this one.
When you cite something from WorldNutDaily, you really aren't worth
debating. Only nuts like Gunner believe anything they say.


Obama wants to give taxpayer money to fund Planned Parenthood for
profit. Many Americans are against killing innocent babies and don't
want to fund it with their tax money.

I wouldn't, either, if anyone were killing babies. Evangelical
Christians seem to have lost their minds around 150 years ago. They
used to know better.

What are these:

Stupid. We saw them before. You should get yourself some new material.

So, seeing them more than once changes what they are? Actually tonight
was the first time I saw that video, the others were similar but I thought
that was a bit more graphic. They sure did look like parts butchered
human babies, glad they weren't.

They were stupid then. They're still stupid now. Have you ever seen PETA's
videos? Same idea.


(you can skip the first ~4 minutes of preaching)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MMzMiSZelg
This shouldn't bother anyone since they are not killing babies

Many others are for killing babies but don't want taxpayers to fund
it. Obamacare and Planned Parenthood want to kill babies because
that's where the money is and I'll bet Obama got or will get a portion
of those dollars.

RogerN

You're deep into the paranoia gig, Roger. Your superstitious views on
abortion have nothing to do with historical Christian doctrine. They're
more like Voodoo than Christianity.

As for your paranoia, here's some good bedtime reading that you should
absorb and think about:

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/conspir...oid_style.html

--
Ed Huntress

In these days we have scientific things like ultrasound where they can
watch the baby fighting for its life while being pulled apart.

So would an earthworm. And they knew these things 1600 years ago, when
St. Augustine formulated his doctrine of "delayed ensoulment," and again
in the 13th Century, when Thomas Aquinas elaborated it. There was no
mystery about fetuses, nor that they would normally develop, be born, and
become babies. The dividing line was one of purely theological
superstition -- as it is today.

I can't help what Augustine formulated but back in the old testament God
said he knew people from their mothers womb.

Yes? And?


Also now we have many better forms of birth control that wasn't
available 150 years ago. So, for savages to act like savages is normal
but today the liberals act like savages. Why use birth control when you
can just rip the living infant from its mothers womb and throw it away?
The Democrats need to get rid of their 150 year old outdated dogma and
get up to date with science.

It's YOUR dogma that's based on a theological superstition that was made
up out of thin air.

What is your claim? If it's a superstition, not a human baby, then a
person shouldn't be charged with a double murder for murdering a pregnant
woman.

Like everything surrounding this issue, that's a law based on emotional
response. But it does have a somewhat logical origin in law, because it's
assumed that a woman carrying a fetus intends to bring it to term. So it's a
pre-murder: the murderer has denied an anticipated and welcomed life-to-be.

Likewise, the law that, since ancient times, has differentiated an
early-term from a late-term fetus. The closer it gets to birth, the more
humanly attached we are to it. Thus, Aristotle had a dividing line; St.
Augustine's was 40 days (for boys -- longer for girls); Aquinas, IIRC, had a
somewhat longer term; and English common law deliniated the allowable time
for abortion as that previous to "quickening": roughly mid-term. Under Roe
v. Wade, this tradition of emotional attachment is ensconsed in the
different legal situations for first, second, and third trimesters.

If you're looking for a scientific basis for all of those prescriptions, you
won't find one. Just as with complete prohibition, the entire issue is an
emotional one, probably hardwired into our species. Only the hardwiring went
haywire around 150 years ago.

If it's a human baby if someone else murders it, then it is also a human
baby if the mother murders it. Abortion is killing a baby, those who
perform abortions are baby killers. It doesn't matter that they twisted
laws to say one thing in one case and something else in another case, the
object is the same in each case.

That's your opinion. And your only real reason for it is purely emotional,
not scientific, and not traditionally Christian.


But, while we are on the topic, why is it woman's choice?

Because it's her body, not yours.

Then why should my tax money be used to pay for it?

Because the society decides that you will. You can join another society if
you wish, but this one is essentially democratic, and that's how the law
came out of the process.


A man and a woman both choose to have sex, except rape or similar, but
if the woman gets pregnant she alone has the choice to abort, keep, or
put up for adoption.

And she has the burden. You don't. That's why it's easy for you to impose
your tyranny on her body. It's none of your business.

But Obama wants the taxpayer to pay for her burden and her decision for
the choice she imposes on the taxpayer.

The law as it's proposed does not allow federal funds to pay for abortion.
That's the one he's endorsed.


The man has no say, why can't he just pay his share of the abortion fee
and have no further obligation for the child if he doesn't want to be a
father?

That's pretty much how it works for a lot of people. They'll share the
cost of the abortion, and he has no further obligation.

Unless she decides to not get the abortion, then the father, or any man
they pin it on, pays a large chunk of his income until the child gets out
of college.

That's another issue. It sounds now like you're arguing FOR abortion, right?


Because it's about the money, they want someone to pay for the child
even though it is only the woman's choice. It doesn't even mater if the
person that pays support is the Childs father or not, the liberals are
just wanting to extracting money from anyone they can.

This is a stupid conclusion. If the birth isn't wanted and a child is
born, someone else usually DOES have to pay.

Yes, anyone they can pin it on, you can have scientific DNA proof that
you're not the father and be put in jail if you don't pay child support
for someone elses child.

Or if it isn't pinned on anyone, chances are good that we taxpayers pay for
the unwanted child. You're Ok with that, I assume?


So, while I believe abortion is murder, the people getting them are
those that believe in abortion. Darwinism at its finest!

It has nothing to do with it. You're cooking up justifications in your
head for an indefensible idea. You have some personal gripes in this
area, I realize, but it looks like it's twisted your thinking into a
self-serving tyranny over the bodies of women.

--
Ed Huntress

If a woman wants an abortion and is going to get it one way or another, I
would prefer she be able to get one legally from a doctor than from a
knitting needle. But I don't think taxpayers should pay for it. Being it
is her body, her decision, and no one else's, why should it be someone
else's expense?

Roger, are you opposed to abortion, or just opposed to paying for it? It's
getting hard to follow your complaint here.

Obama said is should be between the woman and her doctor, since it's none
of my business, why should I pay for it with my tax money?

Then don't. If you're within the law, no problem. If the law winds up saying
that we pay, then go picket Congress.

--
Ed Huntress