Text 12284, 176 rader
Skriven 2014-02-01 13:07:00 av TIM RICHARDSON (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av JANIS KRACHT
Ärende: Re: Wendy Davis
=======================
On 01-31-14, JANIS KRACHT said to TIM RICHARDSON:


This post isn't just to you, its to all the rest who've responded to me on
this issue.


Of them all, including you, there's only about one person who's responded to
me or asked a question of me on this subject, who didn't fly off the handle at
me and throw hateful insults at me for my personal opinion on the subject.


So far, you have led the pack with your insults, your mis-information, your
self-satisfied, egotistical superiority. You are one of the ones who pushed
the moderator here to ban me over the Wayne Chirnside controversy. And all I
really ever did was tell a few of the Europeans who post in this echo to go
piss their pants.


>> choose' which birth control, or birth preventive, to use.


That was back a few years, now. But, you know....the reason I was given for my
being banned from here was that I only told a few people who were being
insulting to me, to piss their pants. The SYSOP I get my mail packets from was
told by the moderator here (threatened with a feed-cut, actually) to block me
from this echo. The SYSOP sent me a private message telling me he'd put me on
`read only', which meant I could `read' the echo, but no messages would be
accepted by his software intended FOR this echo.


>> So which methods would be ok for you?
>> Condoms?
>> Contraceptive pills?
>> Morning-after pills?
>> Others?


No problem...because I could still `read' it, and sometimes the exchanges in
here were interesting.


But I did notice something; the hue and cry for my removal from this echo
included statements like; `well, he just disrupts the whole echo...he's
insulting...he doesn't know how to behave...he can't carry on a calm
conversation without resorting to insults!' and on and on and on....


However...AFTER I was gone, no longer posting in here, whenever I read this
echo...the same ones who called for my banning for my posting `style' to some
of you? They were tossing some of the worst insults at each other, a hell of a
lot worse than anything I ever said to anyone in here in the entire 20 or more
years I've been reading Fido!


And YOU....one of the more vocal ones in favor of my being banned, are
sometimes one of the worst of the lot!


So far, you started out by making the ridiculous claim that `this fellow has
no idea'! on the subject of a democrat gubernatorial candidate in Texas who's
a pathetic liar, who's bio includes some of the most outrageous lies and
distortions any democrat has come up with since Bill Clinton.


I was born shortly before the Pearl Harbor attack, and have seen 13 presidents
come (and can't wait till this one goes!) and go.


And with few exceptions, although I've prefered the republican ones over the
democrat, presidents in BOTH parties have had their bad sides.


>All of the above will probably work. *WHAT* to use isn't the problem.


But, lets get back to the subject at hand.


You made the accusation to another poster early on in this subject that I was
`pushing his (meaning me) own warped perceptions across the human spectrum'...
when all I did was express my opinion on the matter.


I don't know who or what you think I am, but I no more have the power to pushi
anything `...across the human spectrum...' than the man in the moon! I am
*one* person, with *one* opinion, and am NOT an attorney in the middle of any
legal battle over abortion. If I were...your `....pushing his own warped
perceptionsacross the human spectrum...' is a little far fetched, don't you
think?


>Actually > USING one is the problem. But a woman who isn't responsible
>enough to take >measures to prevent herself from becoming pregnant, or
>insisting that her male >partner do so, is now making a decision that we
>both know will end the life of > a human...that doesn't bother you? It
>bothers me. And it should bother > everyone.


JK>Contraceptive pills  = work by aborting the foetus
JK>Morning-after pills  = work by aborting the foetus
JK>IUDs                 = work by aborting the foetus


Lets not ignore that at least two of the above methods are `after un-protected
sex'.


Contraceptive pills (morning after pills) work in various ways; they either
stop ovulation...block sperm from joining with an egg...or they prevent a
fertilized egg from implanting. Either one of these is NOT what ends up in a
Kermit Gosnell-like `abortion' clinic.


In any case, they are AFTER THE FACT methods. Which means that, prior to the
act of sex, neither the male OR female were willing to set their physical
urges on `hold' long enough to take preventive measures to avoid pregnancy.


It has been long touted that `women have the right to decide' for themselves,
and nobody (apparently including a private citizen, involved in a private
discussion that can have no effect whatever on the overall question) is
allowed to think otherwise!


But you're ignoring (deliberately, I think) that, if a woman doesn't want to
get pregnant, she has the responsibility to either use a pregnancy preventive
herself, or insist her sex partner use one.


And, aside from what you've tried to escalate this into, and aside from the
personal attacks and insults you've injected into this conversation aimed at
me, the feminist insistance on `having control of her own body', and `equal
treatment', and all that, also comes with some personal responsibility.


In he case of a rape-caused pregnancy, in this day and age medicine has
advanced to a point where a pregnancy can be detected very early on. In any
event, immediately after a rape situation, what `contraception pills' or a
`morning after' pill can deal with it. And all this extreme reaction to a
single person's opinion on your part, is unnecessary, besides not reflecting
very well on your ability to engage in a conversation without belittling, or
insulting someone who dares to hold a different opinion than you.


JK>So you do in fact agree with abortion supporters, world-wide.


No, I don't. I thought the abortion laws of most states here were rather
restrictive, to say the least.


JK>You're just a little too dense to know it. :)


But I don't think anyone is `dense' just because they hold a different opinion
on the subject than I do.


By the way...I can't help wondering something;


During this discussion I've mentioned the Gosnell case several times. And, I
noticed you never addressed that aspect of `abortion' even once.


`Pro'abortionists rarely, if ever, like to be confronted with the ghoulish
side of the abortion issue. The Gosnell case waqs not just horrific, it was
the `face of abortion'. A `face' the leftist media and the abortion-supporters
don't like.



---
*Durango b301 #PE* 
 * Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)