Text 20838, 116 rader
Skriven 2015-01-24 05:30:00 av TIM RICHARDSON (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av NICHOLAS BOEL
Ärende: Re: Gowdy
=================
On 01-23-15, NICHOLAS BOEL said to TIM RICHARDSON:

NB>Hello TIM,


NB>On 23 Jan 15 10:06, TIM RICHARDSON wrote to NICHOLAS BOEL:


TR> There have been over 50 million abortions since the Supreme Court
TR> found some scrambled meaning to a clause or two of the Constitution. I
TR> find it nearly impossible for the vast majority of those abortions to
TR> have been due to rape or danger of the mother's life.


NB>If you accept the fact that abortions because of rape and danger of the
NB>mother's life are viable, then there is no possible way you can be
NB>"pro-life". That is what I'm getting at. A "pro-life" system would force
NB>mothers to have post-rape children. No effing way would I support that.


NB>Sorry.


Nor do I. And never have.

TR> There are so many methods of birth control or preventives out
TR> there `over the counter', that there is no viable reason for abortions
TR> other than rape or danger to the mother's life.


NB>Other than? Exactly. With that said, you CANNOT be pro-life. See how that
NB>works?


You strangely attempt to twist what I say to mean *your* version of the issue;
typical leftist trick.


Pregnancy isn't something that comes on suddenly in the final trimester stage;
its something thats known in the very first couple of months if not less.


In the case of either a rape, or danger to a potential mother's life...a D&C
in the first two months should be acceptable to all.


TR> Fluke was in law school at the time. You gotta imagine a person who is
TR> studying a career endeavor that is mostly aimed at making people `take
TR> responsibility' for their actions (lawsuits, prosecutions, etc) trying
TR> to make a case for putting the responsibility for the result of sexual
TR> activity onto the taxpayers!


NB>I'm sure there's MUCH worse crap out there that you or I don't ever see.
NB>$3000 divided amongst some odd trillion people paying taxes?


Firstly....with all the millions of Americans no longer in the work force
thanks to Hussein's failure as a national leader, and his cloud-coo-coo land
economic notions....there are fewer actual taxpayers today than when he first
took office in 2009.


Which means there is far less money for frivolous things like paying for the
irresponsibility of some dizzy-headed babe with the hots for a guy in a
cocktail lounge or bowling alley.


The bottom line point is...if she's going to play the game, she'd better be
ready to take responsibililty for what happens next.


And...unless it was either a `proven' rape, or a clear danger to her health,
an abortion is not an option. Her only option from that point is whether she
keeps the new-born baby, or puts it up for adoption.


You can twist my words all you want....try to wrap them around *your* leftist
notion of reality as you see fit. But the bottom line remains the same:


Barring an actual proven rape, or clearly-demonstrated danger to her
life...she takes responsibility for her own actions.  She pays for her
own abortion, not the taxpayers...her `choice' is *what sort of birth
control to use...and whether or not to use it*.


Becoming pregnant under circumstances that are not a rape or danger to
her life...then her `choice' is *what to name her new-born...or whether
to put it up for adoption*.


End of discussion. As for your judgemental pronouncement as to what I am or am
not `pro' or `con'....I am `pro' personal responsibility for one's own
actions, and `anti' pushing responsibility for an un-wanted pregnancy onto
taxpayers, by forcing them to either pay for birth control or abortions.


You aren't pretending the `Gosnell' case never existed, are you? The left is
very lucky I'm not one of those who operate a `pro-life' organization, because
every time Pelosi got in front of a camera and spouted her `woman's choice'
crap...I'd be in front of cameras myself within 24 hours countering her, with
a backdrop of some of the photos from the Gosnell case as `poster-child'
emphasis to my words.


NB>Sheeit..That's dust under the rug. If she actually won that (I don't
NB>remember, probably because I didn't care much), she's a pretty good lawyer
NB>already.


See Chic-Fil-A and a few others.

---
*Durango b301 #PE* 
 * Origin: Check Out Doc's QWK Mail  Via Web BBS > DocsPlace.org  (1:123/140)