GregP did say:

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 23:10:11 -0500, WoodMangler
wrote:


Agreed. But keep in mind that the US was founded by and for Christians.


It was founded by Christians of various stripes, and Jews, and
Muslims, and people with a range of religions I know nothing
about (slaves who weren't Muslims).

Let me go read that declaration of independence again... Perhaps I missed
Abdul's signature the first time.

And a lot of them
(especially the slaves) did a very significant portion of the work to
make the US possible. I don't know whether it was "for Chrisitians,"
but it is true that Christians enslaved and discriminated against a
significant percentage of the denizens and ultimately citizens of this
country. I don't see how such behavior confers any special rights and
privileges on them, at least not in the 21st century in the US, unless
you have a Taliban-style philosophy of a religious state.

At what point did I state or imply that Christians have or deserve special
rights and privileges? I believe I stated that more religious symbols
should not be placed in public places. But I also think that ripping out
the existing ones makes no more sense than chiseling the faces off of Mt.
Rushmore, teaching revisionist history, or eradicating any other artifact
of our shared history.

--
New project = new tool. Hard and fast rule.

Larry Blanchard posits:


As another poster has mentioned, this argument is not amenable to
reason, as it's based on opinion on both sides. How about we drop it?

Seems reasonable. And recall that when abortion was NOT legal, it was still
practiced. The rich went elsewhere for theirs and the poor took all sorts of
poisonous concotions or went to quacks who used 'medical' procedures that would
have been advanced in the year 1000. Abortions are not going to stop because
they are illegal. They are just going to damage or kill more poor people.

Charlie Self
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character,
give him power." Abraham Lincoln

J. Clarke did say:

WoodMangler wrote:

J. Clarke did say:

Geez, get a life--you're as bad
as the Southerners who are still fighting the Civil War.

I've lived in the Southern US most of my life and have never met one of
these folks. Do you know any? Or are you just watching too much
television?

I was borne there, you just lived there--I suspect I've been more heavily
immersed in the culture than you have.

Quite an assumption on your part. And almost certainly incorrect.

Maybe you've been moving in the wrong circles. At the high end you have the
Sons of Confederate Veterans (this is the Ferrari driving set--I don't
recall the dues but I thought my folks were nuts to pay that much),

A group dedicated to remembrance of family members who fought and died in
a war. (I'm eligible for membership by the way) I wouldn't say they're all
"still fighting the civil war" any more than I'd say that the VFW, VVA or
other groups are still fighting their war. Remembering the past certainly
isn't the same as trying to relive it.

in the
middle a surprising number of college professors (one of my cousins is
such) and other intellectuals,

I would find that surprising. I do know several scholars who study the
civil war. Wars are a fascinating subject to many, every conflict waged on
the planet is studied and analyzed by many. Not the same as "still
fighting it".

and then at the low end you have the
Klan, which the other two groups kind of wish would go away as it's
become an embarrasment.

The Klan is a hate group, white supremacists, nothing more. Their agenda
has nothing to do with the American Civil War.

Or maybe the folks you've encountered just don't discuss such matters around
folks who they know they will offend--

The folks I encounter here are family and lifelong friends.

courtesy is a Southern tradition you
know.

Well, it was until we discovered the internet... Now we can be as rude and
anonymous as anyone.

--
New project = new tool. Hard and fast rule.

Agreed. But keep in mind that the US was founded by and for Christians.

Are they the same ones who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of native
Indians, often for just for sport?

mp did say:

Agreed. But keep in mind that the US was founded by and for Christians.

Are they the same ones who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of native
Indians, often for just for sport?

Yep. And some non-native Indians, but those were mostly for meat.

--
New project = new tool. Hard and fast rule.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
If you don't count the 12 million babies that were murdered last year.

If you consider them to be "babies".

I'm curious. When, in your opinion, does that human lifeform in the womb
become a baby?

Personally I find that sort of
transparent appeal to emotion to be especially reprehensible.

And I find people condoning infanticide to be without conscience. If
everyone can just decide what's right and wrong on their own, then what was
wrong with the nutjob killing your friend? If he thought it was OK, who are
we to impose our values on him?

Or not as the case may be. You assume you know the mind of a deity. And
you're a fellow traveller if you condone the sort of actions these whackos
take.

Try paying attention. Where did I say I condoned their actions?

They better just
hope there is no supreme being, because I can't think of much worse than
destroying a totally innocent life.

Well, now, suppose the deity disagrees with you on this?

I'll just take my chances.

todd

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
Larry Blanchard posits:


As another poster has mentioned, this argument is not amenable to
reason, as it's based on opinion on both sides. How about we drop it?

Seems reasonable. And recall that when abortion was NOT legal, it was
still
practiced. The rich went elsewhere for theirs and the poor took all sorts
of
poisonous concotions or went to quacks who used 'medical' procedures that
would
have been advanced in the year 1000. Abortions are not going to stop
because
they are illegal. They are just going to damage or kill more poor people.

Why don't we just legalize any behavior that continues to be practiced even
though it is illegal?

todd

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...

He also believes he doesn't have the right to use the force of law to
make others live by his beliefs.


Then he apparently doesn't have the courage of his convictions, assuming
he
has any core beliefs in the first place that go beyond getting elected.
We're not talking about tax policy or which state gets a new highway
here.
He claims to believe that innocent children are being slaughtered, but
chooses to do nothing to stop it, hiding behind the religous freedom of
others to commit murder.

You just assumed the pertinent point. Kerry, and apparently you,
believe that a fetus is a human child. If we all agreed to that, there
would be no abortion debate. Kerry realizes that others don't believe
that a fetus is a child. You don't seem to realize that. Maybe that's
what you want to force others to believe.

I started out by pointing out that Kerry's position is inconsistent.
Interpreting his statements, he believes that abortion is murder. But
murder is OK, as long as the murderer thinks it's OK. I don't know how else
to interpret his so-called beliefs.

I do oppose any abortion after the fetus is capable of living on its own
without extraordinary efforts and equipment. In effect, that means
after about 6 or 7 months of gestation.

This must be the least consistent and least logical point of view in the
whole debate. "about 6 or 7 months"? Where does 5 1/2 months fit into
that? What about a week before? What's wrong with killing it at 8 months
if the mother wants to? It's her body, isn't it? Suddenly at 6 or 7 months
you have the right to impose your will?

Up to that point, refusing to allow a woman to abort is making her a
slave to your beliefs. Come to think of it, that's probably the
motivation of many. Kinder,kirche,kuchen - now who was it said that?

I'd call it requiring a person to be responsible for their actions, but
there's precious little of that going around these days.

As another poster has mentioned, this argument is not amenable to
reason, as it's based on opinion on both sides. How about we drop it?

OK. You don't post any more and I wont respond to your posts.

todd

In article ,
"Todd Fatheree" wrote:

If you don't count the 12 million babies that were murdered last year. And
don't lump me in with the wackos killing other people. I'm against both
abortion and the death penalty. And if you believe in Hell, you can be sure
it will be containing abortionists in great numbers. They better just hope
there is no supreme being, because I can't think of much worse than
destroying a totally innocent life.

Why is it that the anti-abortion folks don't press the powers that be to
make contraceptives, education and centralized adoption services the
cornerstone of their movement? Why not have condoms, birth control meds
and other devices freely available to the public? Why not have public
relations ad campaigns aimed at abstinence, birth control and adoption?
Why not have a network of federally overseen adoption agencies to ensure
that prenatal healthcare is guaranteed with an inexpensive and easy to
navigate adoption proceedure?

As a left-leaning centrist, I'd fully support my tax dollars going to
such programs and would also support restrictions on abortion for most
cases.

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____

"Sure we'll have fascism in America, but it'll come disguised
as 100% Americanism." -- Huey P. Long

In article ,
"Todd Fatheree" wrote:

If you don't count the 12 million babies that were murdered last year.

Hi Todd.

You believe that abortion is murder of an unborn baby. Where do you draw
the line of responsibility for the health and well-being of the unborn?

What of the mother who smokes, drinks, is a drug addict, etc. who
damages the health of her unborn baby? A child is born with fetal
alcohol syndrome; should society then hold the mother on charges of
neglect, endangerment, assault, etc? What if the mother's behaviors
cause a natural abortion? Ought she be charged with murder also?

Why are the pro-life people not picketing and speaking out against the
fertility clinics who discard unused embryos? If the implanted embryo
automatically becomes classified as a baby then why not consider the
frozen embryo a frozen baby and thus deserving of a womb?

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____

"Sure we'll have fascism in America, but it'll come disguised
as 100% Americanism." -- Huey P. Long

Owen Lowe asks:

Why is it that the anti-abortion folks don't press the powers that be to
make contraceptives, education and centralized adoption services the
cornerstone of their movement? Why not have condoms, birth control meds
and other devices freely available to the public? Why not have public
relations ad campaigns aimed at abstinence, birth control and adoption?
Why not have a network of federally overseen adoption agencies to ensure
that prenatal healthcare is guaranteed with an inexpensive and easy to
navigate adoption proceedure?

As a left-leaning centrist, I'd fully support my tax dollars going to
such programs and would also support restrictions on abortion for most
cases.

Because the feds have other things to spend our money on.

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/orego...nt_page/109896
512934940.xml

You'll probably need to enter your zip and age and gender to read the article.

It's almost funny, but mostly a bit frightening.

Charlie Self
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character,
give him power." Abraham Lincoln

In article ,
otforme (Charlie Self) wrote:

Because the feds have other things to spend our money on.

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/orego...e/front_page/1
09896512934940.xml

smile Yes, I read that when it was published. Damn I'm glad they're
hot on the trail. Actually the story is almost unbelieveable - I'm
wondering if there isn't something going on that Pufferbelly's isn't
aware of...

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____

"Sure we'll have fascism in America, but it'll come disguised
as 100% Americanism." -- Huey P. Long

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 01:33:04 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:


It is also true that Christians forced an *end* to slavery in this country and
elsewhere.

Some did, others objected, often rather vehemently.

Where slavery still exists, it is only in areas not dominated by
Christians.


It is further true that the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s was Christian
to the core.

And Jewish.

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 21:17:19 -0500, WoodMangler
wrote:


Let me go read that declaration of independence again... Perhaps I missed
Abdul's signature the first time.


He was too busy working 14 hours a day for one of the signers....

At what point did I state or imply that Christians have or deserve special
rights and privileges?

When you said that we should continue to maintain religious
symbols in public places, especially since few of those symbols
have been there since the "founding of the country."

"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message ...
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

Personally, some anti-abortion whacko murdered a friend of mine--as far as
I'm concerned the whole lot of you deserve to rot in Hell. I don't notice
pro-choice types going around shooting people who disagree with them.

If you don't count the 12 million babies that were murdered last year. And
don't lump me in with the wackos killing other people. I'm against both
abortion and the death penalty. And if you believe in Hell, you can be sure
it will be containing abortionists in great numbers. They better just hope
there is no supreme being, because I can't think of much worse than
destroying a totally innocent life.

todd

12 million seems like a lot for me to stomache. Are you including
all of the ones that are self induced by the pill every month?
Something more to think about.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message ...
David Hall wrote:

He also believes he doesn't have the right to use the force of law to
make others live by his beliefs.

So if I believe that forcing people of other races into slavery is "a bad
thing", I certainly shouldn't try to "use the force of law to make others
live"
by this belief. If I believe that people of the Jewish religion shouldn't
be gassed by the government, I certainly shouldn't try to "use the force
of law to
make others live" by this belief. Certainly if I believe that killing
women for showing their faces in public is wrong, I shouldn't try to "use
the force
of law to make others live" by this belief. Just which beliefs do you
think CAN be given the force of law?

People who do force their religion on others are called fanatics, or
maybe Ayatollah.

I hate to burst your little anti-religion bubble, but opposition to
abortion is not a religion or a religious belief. Just because many
religious people share that belief doesn't mean you can't reach that
conclusion logically and without any leaps of faith. In fact, there is no
logic to a legal structure that says you can't kill a baby 1 second after
it has been fully delivered, but it is just fine 5 minutes earlier. I do
not know of any logical argument that can find the point prior to birth
that the mass of cells becomes a human being. So if it appears logical to
you that the mere occurance of delivery annoints the child as a human
being then you are the religious one relying on a leap of faith for your
position. Otherwise, let me know, via logic, when that moment arrives that
the non-sentient mass of cells becomes a human being.

You see, this is not something that is amenable to logic, so it is perforce
religious on both sides of the aisle even if not tied to a specific
denomination. Regardless, I think you will find very few atheists opposed
to abortion.

Personally, some anti-abortion whacko murdered a friend of mine--as far as
I'm concerned the whole lot of you deserve to rot in Hell. I don't notice
pro-choice types going around shooting people who disagree with them.


First, my condolances on the loss of your friend. I do not condone
such actions.

I also don't consider myself an anti-abortion "whacko". In fact, if
anything, I am an anti-abortion hypocrite. That is because even though
I do believe that abortion is the killing of innocents, I am not out
on the streets protesting or otherwise taking actual action to try to
stop it. I am like many northerners or semi-abolitionists of the
pre-Civil War period. They knew slavery was wrong but they continued
to peacefully co-exist with, socialise with and do business with slave
owners and those who did not want to end slavery. They may or may not
have looked the other way if they thought an "underground railroad"
station was operating in their neighbor's home. I am not sure how to
evaluate the actions of people like John Brown who took violent action
in support of his beliefs that slavery was wrong or of people who took
violent actions to try to save individual Jews from death in Germany
or German occupied territories. The vast majority of people at the
time thought of John Brown as a wacko activist who deserved to be hung
for his cruelly violent actions that resulted in the deaths of quite a
number of people, active in slavery or not. Many still do, though many
consider him a hero. It often depends on the historical perspective of
the practice that was being violently protested.

As to atheists being opposed to abortion all I can say is that I am
not a religious person. My parents sent me to a Methodist Church while
I was growing up, but they never went. We certainly never discussed
religion at home. I haven't been in a church other than a couple of
weddings and a couple of funerals in over 30 years. I never took
either of my two children to church and as far as I know they have
never attended a church service (they are 24 and 25 years old). Now I
am not willing to call myself an atheist (as I percieve that to mean
you are actively against any religion), I do not believe that my
position on abortion is the least bit driven by any religious leanings
on my part. It might, however, be colored a bit by the realization,
looking back a bit on my family history, that I could not exist if
abortion had been easily available in the past. I know that my mother
fit the classic definition of an abortable child (born to a 16 year
old girl who was the daughter of a white share cropper in the
backwoods of West Virginia in 1928). It doesn't take much imagination
to realize that she was not the first (or for that matter the last) in
my ancestory (including me) that would have had a high likelyhood of
being aborted if it had been as accepted and as available as it is
today.

Dave Hall

"Fly-by-Night CC" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Todd Fatheree" wrote:

If you don't count the 12 million babies that were murdered last year.

Hi Todd.

You believe that abortion is murder of an unborn baby. Where do you draw
the line of responsibility for the health and well-being of the unborn?

What of the mother who smokes, drinks, is a drug addict, etc. who
damages the health of her unborn baby? A child is born with fetal
alcohol syndrome; should society then hold the mother on charges of
neglect, endangerment, assault, etc?

I think the mother should be held to the same standard that an outsider is
held who causes the death of an unborn. If someone shoots a pregnant woman
in the womb and the baby is killed, they should be held liable for the death
of that baby. I don't see how it's any different if the damage is inflicted
by the mother.

What if the mother's behaviors
cause a natural abortion? Ought she be charged with murder also?

I don't know what a "natural abortion" is. Sounds different from a
"spontaneous abortion", which is out of the mother's control.

Why are the pro-life people not picketing and speaking out against the
fertility clinics who discard unused embryos?

They already do. This is exactly the reason that the Roman Catholic church
opposes this kind of procedure, as you end up with embryos that nobody knows
what to do with and creates ethical concerns that many do not want to face.
There are some embryos that become adopted, but my guess is that it's a
small fraction of the ones that are available.

If the implanted embryo
automatically becomes classified as a baby then why not consider the
frozen embryo a frozen baby and thus deserving of a womb?

I know this is a difficult concept to grasp for some people, but I believe
in protecting life from the moment of conception. Any time you wonder what
I think about how a fetus should be protected, remove "fetus" and insert
"your own 1 week old baby" and answer the question yourself. I think most
people are against aborting 8 month old fetuses. As am I, of course. I
suspect they believe that the fetus is, in essence, a human being. What
about a week before? Or a week before that? Let's assume that no one knows
when life begins. I'm a lot more comfortable erring on the side of too much
protection for the unborn than too little.

todd

Fly-by-Night CC wrote in message news:onlnlowe-
Why are the pro-life people not picketing and speaking out against the
fertility clinics who discard unused embryos? If the implanted embryo
automatically becomes classified as a baby then why not consider the
frozen embryo a frozen baby and thus deserving of a womb?

Probably because we can't even get a solidly enforcable ban on the
practice of sucking the brains out of a 9 month old "fetus" that has
been delivered except for his or her head! I think that we need to get
the killing of late term babies ended before we spend too much effort
on embryos. It is just so sad that you cannot even see these full term
"fetuses" as babies and want to deflect the argument to fertilized
eggs.

Dave Hall

GregP wrote:

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 01:33:04 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

It is also true that Christians forced an *end* to slavery
in this country and elsewhere.

Some did, others objected, often rather vehemently.

Where slavery still exists, it is only in areas not
dominated by Christians.

It is further true that the Civil Rights movement of the
1960s was Christian to the core.

And Jewish.

Both correct; and both nearsightedly miss the bigger point: The
civil rights "movement" of the 1960's was supported by people of
many religious beliefs (and by people with none) united by a
common sense of injustice and unfairness.

Religious institutions provided rallying points and lines of
communication vital to the movement - but so did many
non-religious institutions (like public schools, colleges,
universities, and fraternal organizations).

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA

"Jana" wrote in message
om...
"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message
...
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

Personally, some anti-abortion whacko murdered a friend of mine--as
far as
I'm concerned the whole lot of you deserve to rot in Hell. I don't
notice
pro-choice types going around shooting people who disagree with them.

If you don't count the 12 million babies that were murdered last year.
And
don't lump me in with the wackos killing other people. I'm against both
abortion and the death penalty. And if you believe in Hell, you can be
sure
it will be containing abortionists in great numbers. They better just
hope
there is no supreme being, because I can't think of much worse than
destroying a totally innocent life.

todd

12 million seems like a lot for me to stomache. Are you including
all of the ones that are self induced by the pill every month?
Something more to think about.

First off, after looking this up, I have to apologize for the 12 million
number. I don't know why I recalled that number, but after looking up your
question, the actual number of annual abortions in the US according to
Planned Parenthood is somewhere around 1.6 million. I wasn't trying to
exaggerate the number, as in my opinion, 1.6 million doesn't need to be
exaggerated. I don't know how it breaks down, but 90% of them are in the
first trimester.

todd

Todd Fatheree wrote:
"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
[snip] Abortions are not going to stop because they are illegal.
They are just going to damage or kill more poor people.


Why don't we just legalize any behavior that continues to be practiced even
though it is illegal?

todd

And we can throw the baby out with the bathwater while we're at it.
Charlie is right. There is a need for abortion in this society. So
let's work on the "need" part. This is called characterizing the
problem which is (MO) "we need to reserve pregnancy to those who really
want (need? can support?) a child and will rear it to the best of their
abilities to adulthood." Feel free to edit the "want" part with other
verbs or combinations thereof. Once that is done, we can try to
formulate solutions.

Some thoughts: Current efforts, such as education and outlawing
abortion have never been effective. How about this: Install or implant
prior to puberty, some sort of device that renders all children sterile.
When it is time for a baby, the device/implant is reversed, conception
and birth occur and the sterilization is reinstalled. To be sure, this
requires some science and engineering to come up with the
device/procedure/medication to implement affordable reversible
sterilization for men and women, but all it takes is some time and money.

Your homework is to work out the details of the implementation. I.e.
who approves the reversal? How does one "sell" this to a sceptical public?

Other methods may be chastity belts for men and women. Let your
imaginations soar on this one. Perhaps some combination of ideas may
work. Try it. Murdering health workers is not an option.

mahalo,
jo4hn

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 09:36:10 -0600, Morris Dovey
wrote:


Religious institutions provided rallying points and lines of
communication vital to the movement - but so did many
non-religious institutions (like public schools, colleges,
universities, and fraternal organizations).


Religious institutions were also the primary avenue of
personal advancement for especially talented black
men, such as MLK. This is one reason that the civil
rights movement revolved around people such as MLK
and Abernathy.

"GregP"
WoodMangler



Let me go read that declaration of independence again... Perhaps I missed
Abdul's signature the first time.


He was too busy working 14 hours a day for one of the signers....

At what point did I state or imply that Christians have or deserve special
rights and privileges?

When you said that we should continue to maintain religious
symbols in public places, especially since few of those symbols
have been there since the "founding of the country."


That would then deny the heritage of the country. No one is
converted by the symbols but they were put there for a reason.
I don't see a good enough reason to systematically remove them.
If it troubles someone that the country was predominately
Christian they should learn to accept history and facts for what
they are, not what they want them to be.

"GregP"

"Fletis Humplebacker"

But today, the Republican party wins by intentionally cultivating
division - by encouraging disdain of Easterners, liberals, and
intellectuals,


That's got more spin than a class 4 hurricane. It's a fact that the
NE is heavily liberal and vote accordingly. They are out of step
with the rest of the country so pointing it out isn't the division,
the division was already there.


That makes a second hurricane. Almost 56M people voted for
Kerry. The people on the other side of the division line add up
to more than NEders.



No one said they only lived there.



Something that should concern all of us is that Kerry could have
won the election while being down more than 3M votes, and that
is in spite of our federal system that gives more weight to voters
in Bush states such as Wyoming. If that had happened, a lot of
people would have been justifiably angry. Some thought should
be given to that to see whether we should try to avoid such a
situation in the future.


I happen to agree that the electoral college is the best solution
so I wouldn't change it. The voting machines, system, etc may
need a bit of tweaking. And I'd be for doing away with exit polling
or reporting results before the rave is called and maybe polling
anywhere near a voting establishment.

otforme (Charlie Self) wrote in message ...

...

Because the feds have other things to spend our money on.

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/orego...nt_page/109896
512934940.xml

You'll probably need to enter your zip and age and gender to read the article.

It's almost funny, but mostly a bit frightening.


On a related note, supposedly Al Quaida and other clandestine paramilitary
groups make money from various forms of online fraud including identity
theft and sale of knockoff merchandise through front orgainizations.

That may explain why the FBI finally took an interest in phishing about
two years ago--after ignoring complaints for 5-6 years previously.

--

FF

jo4hn writes:

Some thoughts: Current efforts, such as education and outlawing
abortion have never been effective. How about this: Install or implant
prior to puberty, some sort of device that renders all children sterile.
When it is time for a baby, the device/implant is reversed, conception
and birth occur and the sterilization is reinstalled. To be sure, this
requires some science and engineering to come up with the
device/procedure/medication to implement affordable reversible
sterilization for men and women, but all it takes is some time and money.

Your homework is to work out the details of the implementation. I.e.
who approves the reversal? How does one "sell" this to a sceptical public?

Other methods may be chastity belts for men and women. Let your
imaginations soar on this one. Perhaps some combination of ideas may
work. Try it. Murdering health workers is not an option.

I see problems even before you start. My first wife is a social worker. Back
something like 25 years ago, there was a movement afoot, if that's the word, to
put the implant five year contraception devices--Norforms?--in the arms of
women who have had more than, IIRC, 3 kids while on welfare. The outbursts from
various sources were absolutely incredible to me, but she felt, as did many
thousands of others, that it was an infringement of a woman's right to have
children, thus a form of slavery.

To me, that was utter bull****, because what was happening was that women were
having kids almost by the litter, forcing those of us who paid taxes to slave
to pay their bills.

But you're right. I think some form of conception prevention is needed on an
early and long term basis, with possible voluntary reversal at the option of
the person. Most people, probably a majority, are able to plan their lives so
that abortion is not used as contraception. For those who cannot, long term,
reversible sterilization is an answer. The only problem right now, other than
possible non-acceptance by the public, is the lack of assured reversibility in
any form of long term conception I know of, except maybe the above. And I don't
know if they're still around.

Charlie Self
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character,
give him power." Abraham Lincoln

Boy are YOU out of touch with reality. If you care to, go down to a school
and see what they're using as History books. Be prepared for a shock.

Then go out and buy Diane Ravitch's _The Language Police_ to finish your
coronary.

"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in message
...

That would then deny the heritage of the country. No one is
converted by the symbols but they were put there for a reason.
I don't see a good enough reason to systematically remove them.
If it troubles someone that the country was predominately
Christian they should learn to accept history and facts for what
they are, not what they want them to be.

On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 08:53:06 -0800, "Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote:


I happen to agree that the electoral college is the best solution
so I wouldn't change it. The voting machines, system, etc may
need a bit of tweaking. And I'd be for doing away with exit polling
or reporting results before the rave is called and maybe polling
anywhere near a voting establishment.


Exit polling may be the only way to tell if fraud is
being committed.

In article ,
says...
Just curious -- which of the Founding Fathers were Jews? Which were Muslims?

Which were Christians? From what I've read, most of the major players
were Deists.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

In article ,
otforme says...
But you're right. I think some form of conception prevention is needed on an
early and long term basis, with possible voluntary reversal at the option of
the person. Most people, probably a majority, are able to plan their lives so
that abortion is not used as contraception. For those who cannot, long term,
reversible sterilization is an answer.

And it might do something to slow our ever growing overpopulation
problem as well.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

Larry Blanchard responds:

In article ,
says...
But you're right. I think some form of conception prevention is needed on
an
early and long term basis, with possible voluntary reversal at the option
of
the person. Most people, probably a majority, are able to plan their lives
so
that abortion is not used as contraception. For those who cannot, long
term,
reversible sterilization is an answer.

And it might do something to slow our ever growing overpopulation
problem as well.

We have a consumption problem, but the real population problem resides in
China, India and much of what is known as the Third World.

Charlie Self
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character,
give him power." Abraham Lincoln

Larry Blanchard notes:

In article ,
says...
Just curious -- which of the Founding Fathers were Jews? Which were
Muslims?

Which were Christians? From what I've read, most of the major players
were Deists.

And it might do spambait well to check out the financiers of the Revolution.
IIRC, the main one was a Jew named Salomen.

Charlie Self
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character,
give him power." Abraham Lincoln

Charlie Self wrote:

Owen Lowe asks:


Why is it that the anti-abortion folks don't press the powers that be to
make contraceptives, education and centralized adoption services the
cornerstone of their movement? Why not have condoms, birth control meds
and other devices freely available to the public? Why not have public
relations ad campaigns aimed at abstinence, birth control and adoption?
Why not have a network of federally overseen adoption agencies to ensure
that prenatal healthcare is guaranteed with an inexpensive and easy to
navigate adoption proceedure?

As a left-leaning centrist, I'd fully support my tax dollars going to
such programs and would also support restrictions on abortion for most
cases.


Because the feds have other things to spend our money on.

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/orego...nt_page/109896
512934940.xml

You'll probably need to enter your zip and age and gender to read the article.

It's almost funny, but mostly a bit frightening.

Charlie Self
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character,
give him power." Abraham Lincoln
Damn Charlie..you up late or what?

Well here is a plan I found:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11...state_to_reds/

Not that it is an answer or anything like that....

Philski

"philski" wrote in message
...
Well here is a plan I found:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11...state_to_reds/

Not that it is an answer or anything like that....

Philski

Perhaps one of these days, British papers will figure out that most of us
here don't give a flying **** what they think. It certainly appears that
the letter-writing campaign by one of the papers over there to undecided
Ohio voters backfired.

todd

"George"
Boy are YOU out of touch with reality. If you care to, go down to a school
and see what they're using as History books. Be prepared for a shock.


I doubt much would shock me. Kids are getting a skewed history these
days from the liberal controlled re-education camps.




"Fletis

That would then deny the heritage of the country. No one is
converted by the symbols but they were put there for a reason.
I don't see a good enough reason to systematically remove them.
If it troubles someone that the country was predominately
Christian they should learn to accept history and facts for what
they are, not what they want them to be.

In article ,
otforme (Charlie Self) wrote:

I think some form of conception prevention is needed on an
early and long term basis, with possible voluntary reversal at the option of
the person. Most people, probably a majority, are able to plan their lives so
that abortion is not used as contraception. For those who cannot, long term,
reversible sterilization is an answer.

Uh-oh Charlie. Better step lightly or you'll fracture the Catholic vote.
As I understand it the "church" doesn't condone artificial birth control
(at least that's what my converted-to-Catholisism sister has to say on
the matter).

http://catholicism.about.com/cs/sex/f/faqartbc.htm

Your idea may have some sense and merit, but the liberal-centrist in me
has a real problem with it. Reminds me of "Welcome to the Monkey House"
by Kurt Vonnegut. (Or was it Ray Bradbury?)

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____

"Sure we'll have fascism in America, but it'll come disguised
as 100% Americanism." -- Huey P. Long

Owen Lowe responds:

In article ,
otforme (Charlie Self) wrote:

I think some form of conception prevention is needed on an
early and long term basis, with possible voluntary reversal at the option
of
the person. Most people, probably a majority, are able to plan their lives
so
that abortion is not used as contraception. For those who cannot, long
term,
reversible sterilization is an answer.

Uh-oh Charlie. Better step lightly or you'll fracture the Catholic vote.
As I understand it the "church" doesn't condone artificial birth control
(at least that's what my converted-to-Catholisism sister has to say on
the matter).

http://catholicism.about.com/cs/sex/f/faqartbc.htm

Yeah. I was once engaged to an RC woman. Lotsa problems there with a lapsed
Baptist. Rhythm only. And that's pure crapshoot.

An awful lot of church doctrine is based on medieval, or earlier, needs, which
included a lot of kids to replace those lost to various illnesses and injuries.

Your idea may have some sense and merit, but the liberal-centrist in me
has a real problem with it. Reminds me of "Welcome to the Monkey House"
by Kurt Vonnegut. (Or was it Ray Bradbury?)

Yeah, well, it does have problems. So does everything else I've ever heard of
that might come close to solving the mess, though.

Charlie Self
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character,
give him power." Abraham Lincoln

In article ,
otforme (Charlie Self) wrote:

We have a consumption problem, but the real population problem resides in
China, India and much of what is known as the Third World.

Ahhhhhhhh. But China at least still practices forced abortion at the
province level.
http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/world_statistics_china.asp
In part:
In provincial law there are many "reasons" set by the province that the state
require an abortion.* Such "reasons" include "unauthorized pregnancies,
failure to obtain birth certificates, or improper timing for a second child.*
In some provinces you must have an abortion if you are young or unmarried and
the state will provide incentives for the poor to have abortions.* With such
broad laws the provinces are able to require abortions for anyone they choose

I'd sure like to hear the right-to-life supporters put their mouths were
their money goes. US "manufacturers" (such as: Delta, Jet, Grizzly, P-C,
DeWalt) and retailers (Walmart, Target, Sears) are falling over
themselves to carry cheap products manufactured in China. Where is the
outcry from the pro-life crowd to demand President Bush to publicly
condemn such activities by China and declare that the US will impose
restrictions on imports from China? Guess what... ain't gonna happen.
The dollar has much more value than do morals.

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____

"Sure we'll have fascism in America, but it'll come disguised
as 100% Americanism." -- Huey P. Long

jo4hn wrote:

[more snip]
And we can throw the baby out with the bathwater while we're at it.
Charlie is right. There is a need for abortion in this society. So
let's work on the "need" part. This is called characterizing the
problem which is (MO) "we need to reserve pregnancy to those who really
want (need? can support?) a child and will rear it to the best of their
abilities to adulthood." Feel free to edit the "want" part with other
verbs or combinations thereof. Once that is done, we can try to
formulate solutions.

Some thoughts: Current efforts, such as education and outlawing
abortion have never been effective. How about this: Install or implant
prior to puberty, some sort of device that renders all children sterile.
When it is time for a baby, the device/implant is reversed, conception
and birth occur and the sterilization is reinstalled. To be sure, this
requires some science and engineering to come up with the
device/procedure/medication to implement affordable reversible
sterilization for men and women, but all it takes is some time and money.

Your homework is to work out the details of the implementation. I.e.
who approves the reversal? How does one "sell" this to a sceptical public?

Other methods may be chastity belts for men and women. Let your
imaginations soar on this one. Perhaps some combination of ideas may
work. Try it. Murdering health workers is not an option.

mahalo,
jo4hn

Keep in mind that the above is an EXAMPLE of the type of thought process
that we (collective) should be going through to understand and resolve
problems of this sort. If you can characterize the problem and IF it is
still felt to be a problem, THEN possible solutions should be
formulated, studied, and implemented.
jo4hn

In article ,
otforme says...
And it might do something to slow our ever growing overpopulation
problem as well.

We have a consumption problem, but the real population problem resides in
China, India and much of what is known as the Third World.

Oh, they definitely have a worse problem than us, but we have one too.
The US population has been doubling every 60 years or so. That's right
on the world average.

The average is lowered by the European nations, many of which have a
stable or even decreasing population.

I've seen studies (who knows how good they are) that give the sustained
carrying capacity of the US portion of North America as anywhere from 65
million to 125 million, both of those way below our current population.

And every time our birthrate goes way down, the politicians increase
immigration. I get the feeling our economy is one big Ponzi scheme.
Just think what would happen to the housing industry if all we needed
was replacement housing.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description