Just Wondering wrote:
On 7/31/2012 10:57 AM, Han wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote:
The amount of sunlight striking the Earth is not the issue. The
issue is that there is no proven technology for utilizing it that
has been developed to a point where we can start construction on
1000 GW worth of new plants this year.

If we're going to do what the global warming people calculate that
we need to do and solar is part of the package we need to put real
effort into developing the technology to that level. But we can't
wait for that to happen.

And another issue is that somebody has to figure out how to do
something about China. Even if the entire rest of the world stops
producing CO2 at all, the Chinese will still be producing nearly as
much as the rest of the world combined was when China signed Kyoto.
I fully agree. But should that absolve us of the responsibility to
do what we reasonably can do??

I have yet to see a persuasive argument disputing the concept that,
on a global scale, a little global warming would be a GOOD thing.
Arguments for local disruptions, yes. Arguments for global
catastrophe, no.

Right.
* More people die from the effects of cold than of heat.
* Growing seasons in much of the world would be extended.
* An ice-free Northwest Passage would foster considerably more economical
trade routes. Europe could, for instance, revel in cheap Chinese imports.
* Some cities, i.e., San Francisco, New York, etc., might have to be
abandoned.

Han wrote:

One last remark. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Everyone
should act as their conscience/morality/whatever directs them.

But NO ONE should impose their view on someone who does NOT share that
view. In the case of childbearing, pregnancy, contraception and
related subjects it is the WOMAN who is ultimately in charge and who
should make her INFORMED decision. To me THAT is an absolute.

Does the fetus get to vote?

Here's the drill: Actions have consequences. If a woman has unprotected sex,
she should accept the results.

Just man-up, woman. Take your humps and get on with your life.

Han wrote:

Now you are imposing your opinion as a law on someone else. Would you
like a law that says you, -MIKE-, have to pray in this church, on that
street corner? The woman's body is not something you have
jurisdiction over. I respect your right to have an opinion that may
say, for instance, "I do not think you have the right to terminate
that pregnancy of yours", but it has to be followed by "but I will
respect your right to do as you see fit". Then, of course you have
the right to end any relationship with the woman, unless she is your
responsibility as a minor. But even then, it is her body, and she
needs to live with the consequences.

There are heartfelt and rational arguments on both sides of the abortion
debate. After much thoughtful study, I've come down on the side of
unrestricted termination of pregnancy.

Why?

Unfettered abortions will reduce the number of liberals amongst us!

A "Progressive" woman who terminate her pregnancy is similar to her eating
the seed corn. This phenomenon actually has a name: It's called "The Roe
Effect." Here's how it works.

In 1982, it was estimated there were 72,000 abortions in Florida. If not for
the abortion, those fetuses would have been eligible to vote in 2000. Some
would have moved out of state, some would be dead, some would have been
incarcerated. A large percentage would not have bothered to go to the polls.

That still leaves many thousands who would go to the polls and mimic their
mom's inclinations.

George Bush won Florida, and hence the presidency, by 585 votes.

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 17:09:12 -0500, "HeyBub"
Here's the drill: Actions have consequences. If a woman has unprotected sex,
she should accept the results.

Yeah, right! Perhaps you should also include a little of that "accept
the results" to the men who were part of that equation.

I'm willing to bet that's there's many more men who have refused
responsibility than women who have refused the responsibility.

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 17:17:21 -0500, "HeyBub"
There are heartfelt and rational arguments on both sides of the abortion
debate. After much thoughtful study, I've come down on the side of
unrestricted termination of pregnancy.

Who gives a ****! It's really none of your business.

On 7/31/2012 4:09 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Han wrote:
One last remark. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Everyone
should act as their conscience/morality/whatever directs them.

But NO ONE should impose their view on someone who does NOT share that
view. In the case of childbearing, pregnancy, contraception and
related subjects it is the WOMAN who is ultimately in charge and who
should make her INFORMED decision. To me THAT is an absolute.
Does the fetus get to vote?

Here's the drill: Actions have consequences. If a woman has unprotected sex,
she should accept the results.

Just man-up, woman. Take your humps and get on with your life.


Correct. Choices have consequences. Pregnancy is a potential
consequence of every act of sexual intercourse. A woman makes her
choice by either spreading her legs or crossing her knees.
One reason abortion is legal is that an aborted fetus doesn't get to
vote. She can't, y'know, being dead and all.

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:50:19 -0500, -MIKE- wrote:

I hold the same high regard for the rights of the woman inside the
woman's womb.
Plain and simple.

No, you hold the rights of a potential human over those of an actual
human.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On 7/31/2012 6:08 PM, Dave wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 17:09:12 -0500, "HeyBub"
Here's the drill: Actions have consequences. If a woman has unprotected sex,
she should accept the results.

Yeah, right! Perhaps you should also include a little of that "accept
the results" to the men who were part of that equation.

I'm willing to bet that's there's many more men who have refused
responsibility than women who have refused the responsibility.

Yep ... and well said.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 7/31/12 6:47 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:50:19 -0500, -MIKE- wrote:

I hold the same high regard for the rights of the woman inside the
woman's womb.
Plain and simple.

No, you hold the rights of a potential human over those of an actual
human.


Funny, with all the advances in science that the field in which people
still want to stay in the stone ages is the area of fetal development.
At the moment of conception, it has its own unique dna, has a beating
heart by the time the mother misses her period, has measurable brain
waves in about 40 days, about seventh, when the majority of abortions
are performed, has fingers and genitals and the childs face is
recognizably human, yet Planned Parenthood wants you to believe it's
just a blob of tissue.

It's a life, it's a person.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:


I fully agree. But should that absolve us of the responsibility to
do what we reasonably can do??

The point where things blurr is on what the definition of "reasonably"
is.

Of course, what is reasonable to one person may not be so to another. Good
thing we respect one another's opinions!! (and that is meant exactly the
way it sounds).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Han wrote:

And another issue is that somebody has to figure out how to do
something about China. Even if the entire rest of the world stops
producing CO2 at all, the Chinese will still be producing nearly as
much as the rest of the world combined was when China signed Kyoto.

I fully agree. But should that absolve us of the responsibility to do
what we reasonably can do??

Yes. It's called "futility."

Your efforts could be put to better use than being part of the bucket
brigade trying to bail the Titanic.

You're right. If the Titanic has indeed already hit the iceberg. If that
hasn't yet happened, maybe we can reason with the captain, or fix the bad
design.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 7/31/2012 7:42 PM, Han wrote:
You're right. If the Titanic has indeed already hit the iceberg. If that
hasn't yet happened, maybe we can reason with the captain, or fix the bad
design.

+1

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

"Just Wondering" wrote:

Correct. Choices have consequences. Pregnancy is a potential
consequence of every act of sexual intercourse. A woman makes her
choice by either spreading her legs or crossing her knees.
One reason abortion is legal is that an aborted fetus doesn't get to
vote. She can't, y'know, being dead and all.
--------------------------------
What a crock.

It still takes TWO to tango.

Trying to avoid responsibility by blaming your female partner is a
joke.

Lew

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 18:05:35 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:


"Just Wondering" wrote:

Correct. Choices have consequences. Pregnancy is a potential
consequence of every act of sexual intercourse. A woman makes her
choice by either spreading her legs or crossing her knees.
One reason abortion is legal is that an aborted fetus doesn't get to
vote. She can't, y'know, being dead and all.
--------------------------------
What a crock.

It still takes TWO to tango.

Trying to avoid responsibility by blaming your female partner is a
joke.

Lew


I still remember being 16 years old riding to work with my father. He
was explaining that in life you have choices and they all effect your
future and your freedom to do as you please. We were expected to be
responsible for problems we might cause. That seems to have been
totally lost in todays culture. I have my theories as to why, but see
no point in trying to close the barn door at this point. The question
would be how do you try to make people assume responsibility in our
current society and politcal arena. I'm just glad I'm not 20 years
old in this society.

Mike M

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 19:09:42 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 7/31/2012 6:08 PM, Dave wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 17:09:12 -0500, "HeyBub"
Here's the drill: Actions have consequences. If a woman has unprotected sex,
she should accept the results.

Yeah, right! Perhaps you should also include a little of that "accept
the results" to the men who were part of that equation.

I'm willing to bet that's there's many more men who have refused
responsibility than women who have refused the responsibility.

Yep ... and well said.

Perhaps, but what gets me is that so many people are having
unprotected sex, in this day of so many untreatable STDs, plus
life-threatening AIDS! Pregnancy is the least of their possible
troubles.

--
Another belief of mine: that everyone else my age is an adult,
whereas I am merely in disguise.
-- Margaret Atwood

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 18:05:35 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:


"Just Wondering" wrote:

Correct. Choices have consequences. Pregnancy is a potential
consequence of every act of sexual intercourse. A woman makes her
choice by either spreading her legs or crossing her knees.
One reason abortion is legal is that an aborted fetus doesn't get to
vote. She can't, y'know, being dead and all.
--------------------------------
What a crock.

It still takes TWO to tango.

Trying to avoid responsibility by blaming your female partner is a
joke.

I don't believe anyone wants to let the other half off with a slap on the
wrist.

In article ,
says...

Han wrote:

One last remark. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Everyone
should act as their conscience/morality/whatever directs them.

But NO ONE should impose their view on someone who does NOT share that
view. In the case of childbearing, pregnancy, contraception and
related subjects it is the WOMAN who is ultimately in charge and who
should make her INFORMED decision. To me THAT is an absolute.

Does the fetus get to vote?

Here's the drill: Actions have consequences. If a woman has unprotected sex,
she should accept the results.

Just man-up, woman. Take your humps and get on with your life.

That's easy for someone who can't get pregnant to say.

People of good will are in disagreement on the right thing to do about
abortion, and a lot of the most vociferous participants in the
discussion are people who are biologically incapable of being at risk.
In this circumstance the government should just plain stay out of it--if
there are laws against it they should be repealed, if there are laws
requiring it they should be repealed, the government should simply not
be involved.

On 7/31/2012 7:05 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Just Wondering" wrote:

Correct. Choices have consequences. Pregnancy is a potential
consequence of every act of sexual intercourse. A woman makes her
choice by either spreading her legs or crossing her knees.
One reason abortion is legal is that an aborted fetus doesn't get to
vote. She can't, y'know, being dead and all.
--------------------------------
What a crock.

It still takes TWO to tango.

Trying to avoid responsibility by blaming your female partner is a
joke.

Lew


YOU, not I, are the one who advocates that women be entitled to avoid
responsibility. Men and women are equally responsible for the choices
they make. But that unborn daughter doesn't have a choice. Her mother
is free to kill her, and the father cannot save her.

On 7/31/2012 8:45 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...
Han wrote:
One last remark. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Everyone
should act as their conscience/morality/whatever directs them.

But NO ONE should impose their view on someone who does NOT share that
view. In the case of childbearing, pregnancy, contraception and
related subjects it is the WOMAN who is ultimately in charge and who
should make her INFORMED decision. To me THAT is an absolute.
Does the fetus get to vote?

Here's the drill: Actions have consequences. If a woman has unprotected sex,
she should accept the results.

Just man-up, woman. Take your humps and get on with your life.
That's easy for someone who can't get pregnant to say.

People of good will are in disagreement on the right thing to do about
abortion, and a lot of the most vociferous participants in the
discussion are people who are biologically incapable of being at risk.

Physical risk, perhaps. Men have no say in whether their their unborn
daughter's mother can take her life, but if the mother chooses to let
the daughter live, the father has financial and legal responsibility.

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

Perhaps, but what gets me is that so many people are having
unprotected sex, in this day of so many untreatable STDs, plus
life-threatening AIDS! Pregnancy is the least of their possible
troubles.

There is a lesson that probably doesn't get emphasized enough:
When you are having sex with that person, you automagically have sex with
EVERY OTHER person that person has had sex with. Pause for emphasis.
Is that REALLY what you want?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 02:18:08 -0600, Just Wondering
Physical risk, perhaps. Men have no say in whether their their unborn
daughter's mother can take her life, but if the mother chooses to let
the daughter live, the father has financial and legal responsibility.

It's the woman's body that is of concern here. I wonder how quickly
opinions would change if men who were the ones that gave birth?

In the end, a man is in control of his own actions. That makes him
just as responsible for financial and legal responsibility.

"Dave" wrote in message ...

On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 02:18:08 -0600, Just Wondering
Physical risk, perhaps. Men have no say in whether their their unborn
daughter's mother can take her life, but if the mother chooses to let
the daughter live, the father has financial and legal responsibility.

It's the woman's body that is of concern here. I wonder how quickly
opinions would change if men who were the ones that gave birth?
================================================== ==================
Very quickly.

CW wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 02:18:08 -0600, Just Wondering
Physical risk, perhaps. Men have no say in whether their their
unborn daughter's mother can take her life, but if the mother
chooses to let the daughter live, the father has financial and legal
responsibility.

It's the woman's body that is of concern here. I wonder how quickly
opinions would change if men who were the ones that gave birth?
================================================== ==================
Very quickly.

It may seem that way to you - but that's only because you presume what
people's opinions are. So short-sighted of you.

--

-Mike-

On 8/1/12 9:37 AM, CW wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message ...

On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 02:18:08 -0600, Just Wondering
Physical risk, perhaps. Men have no say in whether their their unborn
daughter's mother can take her life, but if the mother chooses to let
the daughter live, the father has financial and legal responsibility.

It's the woman's body that is of concern here. I wonder how quickly
opinions would change if men who were the ones that gave birth?
================================================== ==================
Very quickly.


That doesn't explain the millions of pro-life women.
I bet the woman inside the womb would be pro-life if she had a choice in
the matter.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

-MIKE- wrote in
:

On 8/1/12 9:37 AM, CW wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 02:18:08 -0600, Just Wondering
Physical risk, perhaps. Men have no say in whether their their
unborn daughter's mother can take her life, but if the mother
chooses to let the daughter live, the father has financial and legal
responsibility.

It's the woman's body that is of concern here. I wonder how quickly
opinions would change if men who were the ones that gave birth?
================================================== ==================
Very quickly.


That doesn't explain the millions of pro-life women.
I bet the woman inside the womb would be pro-life if she had a choice
in the matter.

It would be ideal if we could just make life so that pregnancy would
result ONLY from a conscious decision made with total consent between 2
people. Unless we find a way to sterilize people in a reversible manner,
that will not always happen.

As of now, use of effective contraceptives could and should be higher.
Since totally effective contraception is a(?n?) utopian illusion as well,
we get collectively saddled with unwanted pregnancies. Fortunately, with
increasing education and availability of contraceptives, the number of
unwanted pregnancies is decreasing. There is hope!

While the preferable solution to an unwanted pregnancy would be a birth
at full-term with adoption by a loving family, that isn't always possible
(even if the paperwork was easier). Moreover, using any female as a
forced upon incubator is reprehensible. Even considering that she might
have gotten pregnant by "negligence". Also, there are many medical
reasons for terminating a dangerous condition, which unfortunately almost
every pregnancy can turn into.

So pregnancy is a blessed state, but only if consciously conceived (pun
intended).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 8/1/12 10:22 AM, Han wrote:
-MIKE- wrote in
:

On 8/1/12 9:37 AM, CW wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 02:18:08 -0600, Just Wondering
Physical risk, perhaps. Men have no say in whether their their
unborn daughter's mother can take her life, but if the mother
chooses to let the daughter live, the father has financial and legal
responsibility.

It's the woman's body that is of concern here. I wonder how quickly
opinions would change if men who were the ones that gave birth?
================================================== ==================
Very quickly.


That doesn't explain the millions of pro-life women.
I bet the woman inside the womb would be pro-life if she had a choice
in the matter.

It would be ideal if we could just make life so that pregnancy would
result ONLY from a conscious decision made with total consent between 2
people. Unless we find a way to sterilize people in a reversible manner,
that will not always happen.

As of now, use of effective contraceptives could and should be higher.
Since totally effective contraception is a(?n?) utopian illusion as well,
we get collectively saddled with unwanted pregnancies. Fortunately, with
increasing education and availability of contraceptives, the number of
unwanted pregnancies is decreasing. There is hope!

While the preferable solution to an unwanted pregnancy would be a birth
at full-term with adoption by a loving family, that isn't always possible
(even if the paperwork was easier).

Yes, adoption should be made easier. It should be made easier for the
thousands of couples waiting to adopt a baby of any color or race.... or
with down's syndrome, or born addicted to crack. There are waiting
lists, people at my church on on them. We agree, adoption should be
made easier.


Moreover, using any female as a
forced upon incubator is reprehensible. Even considering that she might
have gotten pregnant by "negligence". Also, there are many medical
reasons for terminating a dangerous condition, which unfortunately almost
every pregnancy can turn into.

So pregnancy is a blessed state, but only if consciously conceived (pun
intended).


The vast majority of abortions are performed for convenience. Abortions
due to non-consensual sex or danger to the mother's life account for
less than 1/10 of one percent, so that argument has never held water.
Any and all abortion restricting legislation that gotten any traction
contained exemptions for rape/incest and danger to the life of the mother.

Nothing in your argument negates the fact that we are talking about a
human life. Life is difficult. Life is more difficult with an unintended
pregnancy. We were never promised an easy life. The human being inside
the womb will never get a chance to see how difficult or easy life is.
Bottom line, it is a life.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

-MIKE- wrote in news:jvbl7f$3ge$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

The human being inside
the womb will never get a chance to see how difficult or easy life is.
Bottom line, it is a life.

The fetus is a /potential/ life. There is a difference. There is no
guarantee that pregnancy and birth will happen without danger to mother or
fetus. Many times there is a need for intensive medical intervention.
Perhaps that is why "nature" made fecundity so much greater than
"necessary" for maintaining population.

I know it sounds very bad (and I don't really think it is good) to end a
potential life. But, sorry to say, I insist that the wishes of the
potential mother rate far above those of the potential of a fetus. The
better of 2 bad alternatives.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 8/1/2012 11:21 AM, Han wrote:
-MIKE- wrote in news:jvbl7f$3ge$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

The human being inside
the womb will never get a chance to see how difficult or easy life is.
Bottom line, it is a life.
The fetus is a /potential/ life. There is a difference.

A fertilized ovum is a life, genetically different from either parent.
The question is not whether it is life -- it unquestionably is. The
question is when that life becomes a human, or is otherwise entitled to
protection by law. After birth, you can end a human life if the
person's brain ceases to function, or in defense of self or others. The
same test should be applied to life before birth, with the burden on the
person seeking to end the life to prove that it does not have a
functioning brain (this usually commences around week 8-10) or is
necessary to save the mother's life.

Han wrote:


The fetus is a /potential/ life. There is a difference. There is no
guarantee that pregnancy and birth will happen without danger to
mother or fetus. Many times there is a need for intensive medical
intervention. Perhaps that is why "nature" made fecundity so much
greater than "necessary" for maintaining population.

All right - I cannot sit back any longer. Han - both you and CW are full of
****. I won't elaborate on my own beliefs because that would take more
discussion than either of you want to believe, but what you say above is
just ludicrous.

The fetus is a potential life? By what freaking definition do you arrive at
that conclusion? So what if there are no guarantees - does that define life
to you? If so, then what are the qualities that you hold as the definition
of guarantee? A certain degree of intelligence? A specific physical
capability? Think about that before you answer it. Intensive medical
care - that should be a qualifier? Think about that one. So - by what
means - according to your logic above - could we ever gurantee that
pregnancy and birth will happen without danger to mother and fetus? Han -
you do not think through your own arguments very well. If you have any
valid points - they are not well represented in what you state.


I know it sounds very bad (and I don't really think it is good) to
end a potential life.

Again - a "potential life", yet if that same degree of cellular formation
were to be discovered on Mars, you would be among the first to declare that
life has been found on Mars - wouldn't you?


But, sorry to say, I insist that the wishes of
the potential mother rate far above those of the potential of a
fetus.

Ok - as an opinion, I can understand that you say that. My question is...
why?

--

-Mike-

On 8/1/12 12:21 PM, Han wrote:
-MIKE- wrote in news:jvbl7f$3ge$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

The human being inside
the womb will never get a chance to see how difficult or easy life is.
Bottom line, it is a life.

The fetus is a /potential/ life. There is a difference.

Modern science has shown that the only difference between the life of a
fetus and the life of any other human, is real estate. The baby inside
the womb has unique dna, brainwaves, beating heart, feels pain, etc,
etc, etc. premature birth babies are surviving earlier and earlier
every year with advances in medical science. Yet, with all our advances
in science, with our species supposedly evolving and improving, we
blindly and foolishly, because of the choice agenda, refer to a living
human being inside a womb as just a blob of tissue.


There is no
guarantee that pregnancy and birth will happen without danger to mother or
fetus.Many times there is a need for intensive medical intervention.

You keep bringing that up and I already explained how those abortions
account for such a such a small percentage that it's a moot point. I
also explained that every abortion restrictive legislation has included
exemptions for that. Why do you use 1/10 of 1 percent of cases to argue
the other 99.9 percent?


Perhaps that is why "nature" made fecundity so much greater than
"necessary" for maintaining population.

I know it sounds very bad (and I don't really think it is good) to end a
potential life. But, sorry to say, I insist that the wishes of the
potential mother rate far above those of the potential of a fetus. The
better of 2 bad alternatives.


It is a moral dilemma, for sure.
I would rather grant the same basic human rights to both humans.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 01 Aug 2012 11:15:08 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

Perhaps, but what gets me is that so many people are having
unprotected sex, in this day of so many untreatable STDs, plus
life-threatening AIDS! Pregnancy is the least of their possible
troubles.

There is a lesson that probably doesn't get emphasized enough:
When you are having sex with that person, you automagically have sex with
EVERY OTHER person that person has had sex with. Pause for emphasis.
Is that REALLY what you want?

Han! That's *not* a liberal concept! Use a Condom! ;-)

On Wed, 1 Aug 2012 07:37:47 -0700, "CW" wrote:



"Dave" wrote in message ...

On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 02:18:08 -0600, Just Wondering
Physical risk, perhaps. Men have no say in whether their their unborn
daughter's mother can take her life, but if the mother chooses to let
the daughter live, the father has financial and legal responsibility.

It's the woman's body that is of concern here. I wonder how quickly
opinions would change if men who were the ones that gave birth?
================================================= ===================
Very quickly.

By that logic, your position is that there are *no* no right-to-life women? I
know one who would talk you ear off (and then work down from there).

" wrote in
:

On 01 Aug 2012 11:15:08 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
m:

Perhaps, but what gets me is that so many people are having
unprotected sex, in this day of so many untreatable STDs, plus
life-threatening AIDS! Pregnancy is the least of their possible
troubles.

There is a lesson that probably doesn't get emphasized enough:
When you are having sex with that person, you automagically have sex
with EVERY OTHER person that person has had sex with. Pause for
emphasis. Is that REALLY what you want?

Han! That's *not* a liberal concept! Use a Condom! ;-)

Just quoting an Ann Landers truism, krw! Or do you have a real name I
can call you? And, perhaps, there are a few things that transcend
liberalconservative.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article ,
says...

"Dave" wrote in message ...

On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 02:18:08 -0600, Just Wondering
Physical risk, perhaps. Men have no say in whether their their unborn
daughter's mother can take her life, but if the mother chooses to let
the daughter live, the father has financial and legal responsibility.

It's the woman's body that is of concern here. I wonder how quickly
opinions would change if men who were the ones that gave birth?
================================================== ==================
Very quickly.

There's an old saying: "If men got pregnant, abortion would be a
sacrament."

Han wrote:


It would be ideal if we could just make life so that pregnancy would
result ONLY from a conscious decision made with total consent between
2 people. Unless we find a way to sterilize people in a reversible
manner, that will not always happen.

So - let's look at a place where your argument breaks down Han. Our
youngest daughter was not planned. Just sorta happend - got no idea how
such a thing could have happened... But - it did. According to your
logic - she should have been terminated because she was not planned by a
concious decision made with total consent between 2 people. Do you even
read the stuff you write, brother? Sometimes it just makes no sense because
it is borderline crazy. Hell Han - we were just having sex - no consent
between us to have another kid. Just raw sex! And by your formula which
you clearly have not thought well through, she might well have been
justifiably terminated - only because it was not a conscious decision. Do
you really think that is what you meant to say?


--

-Mike-

On 8/1/12 1:47 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

"Dave" wrote in message ...

On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 02:18:08 -0600, Just Wondering
Physical risk, perhaps. Men have no say in whether their their unborn
daughter's mother can take her life, but if the mother chooses to let
the daughter live, the father has financial and legal responsibility.

It's the woman's body that is of concern here. I wonder how quickly
opinions would change if men who were the ones that gave birth?
================================================== ==================
Very quickly.

There's an old saying: "If men got pregnant, abortion would be a
sacrament."


Quaint... were it not for the millions of pro-life women.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 01 Aug 2012 18:40:08 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 01 Aug 2012 11:15:08 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

Perhaps, but what gets me is that so many people are having
unprotected sex, in this day of so many untreatable STDs, plus
life-threatening AIDS! Pregnancy is the least of their possible
troubles.

There is a lesson that probably doesn't get emphasized enough:
When you are having sex with that person, you automagically have sex
with EVERY OTHER person that person has had sex with. Pause for
emphasis. Is that REALLY what you want?

Han! That's *not* a liberal concept! Use a Condom! ;-)

Just quoting an Ann Landers truism, krw! Or do you have a real name I
can call you?

True, for sure. True PC

Keith. I haven't hidden it but my sig got dropped long ago (I think).

And, perhaps, there are a few things that transcend
liberalconservative.

Except that it doesn't. That message is quite anti-PC.

"Han" wrote in message ...

-MIKE- wrote in news:jvbl7f$3ge$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

The human being inside
the womb will never get a chance to see how difficult or easy life is.
Bottom line, it is a life.

The fetus is a /potential/ life. There is a difference. There is no
guarantee that pregnancy and birth will happen without danger to mother or
fetus. Many times there is a need for intensive medical intervention.
Perhaps that is why "nature" made fecundity so much greater than
"necessary" for maintaining population.

I know it sounds very bad (and I don't really think it is good) to end a
potential life. But, sorry to say, I insist that the wishes of the
potential mother rate far above those of the potential of a fetus. The
better of 2 bad alternatives.
================================================== =================
+1

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:


It would be ideal if we could just make life so that pregnancy would
result ONLY from a conscious decision made with total consent between
2 people. Unless we find a way to sterilize people in a reversible
manner, that will not always happen.

So - let's look at a place where your argument breaks down Han. Our
youngest daughter was not planned. Just sorta happend - got no idea
how such a thing could have happened... But - it did. According to
your logic - she should have been terminated because she was not
planned by a concious decision made with total consent between 2
people. Do you even read the stuff you write, brother? Sometimes it
just makes no sense because it is borderline crazy. Hell Han - we
were just having sex - no consent between us to have another kid.
Just raw sex! And by your formula which you clearly have not thought
well through, she might well have been justifiably terminated - only
because it was not a conscious decision. Do you really think that is
what you meant to say?

Obviously that is NOT what I meant. At least, I infer from your answer
that your daughter although not "planned" was indeed welcomed into the
family. Congratulations on a happy family! I apologize that you took my
"unplanned" phrase in such an absolute way. That was totally not my
intention.

As I said, I have never had to face the situation myself. I struggle
with how to address it and have the utmost respect for anyone's opinion
and deeds (as I have said before). I hope that you will also.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

" wrote in
:

On 01 Aug 2012 18:40:08 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On 01 Aug 2012 11:15:08 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
m:

Perhaps, but what gets me is that so many people are having
unprotected sex, in this day of so many untreatable STDs, plus
life-threatening AIDS! Pregnancy is the least of their possible
troubles.

There is a lesson that probably doesn't get emphasized enough:
When you are having sex with that person, you automagically have sex
with EVERY OTHER person that person has had sex with. Pause for
emphasis. Is that REALLY what you want?

Han! That's *not* a liberal concept! Use a Condom! ;-)

Just quoting an Ann Landers truism, krw! Or do you have a real name I
can call you?

True, for sure. True PC

Keith. I haven't hidden it but my sig got dropped long ago (I think).

And, perhaps, there are a few things that transcend
liberalconservative.

Except that it doesn't. That message is quite anti-PC.

Well, Keith, I don't care whether that message is politically correct. It
is factually correct, and it may matter a great deal:
"When you are having sex with another person, you automagically have sex
with EVERY OTHER person that person has had sex with."

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid