Text 20841, 133 rader
Skriven 2015-01-24 10:09:54 av Nicholas Boel (1:154/701)
  Kommentar till text 20838 av TIM RICHARDSON (1:123/140)
Ärende: Re: Gowdy
=================
Hello TIM,

On 24 Jan 15 05:30, TIM RICHARDSON wrote to NICHOLAS BOEL:

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

 NB>> Sorry.

 TR> Nor do I. And never have.

Yet you argue, scratch, claw, and protest all pro-choice, and consider them
"leftists."

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

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

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

I am far from leftist, but you can be the first to throw stones and call names
there, Tim. I've seen how you work. As soon as it's turned back on you you cry
bloody murder and start playing the innocent card.

You said last week you were leaving Fidonet for good. Couldn't stay away?

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

No kidding.

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

And a D&C is still considered an abortion. It being "acceptable" is a statement
of pro-choice. Yet your original comment was bashing them all to hell and back.
Just pointing out the double standard here, is all.

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

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

Actually, the workforce has gotten much better than when Bush left. Where the
heck are you getting your information from? Is it not true that 2014 was one of
the best years since 1999 for nonfarm and private sector employment?

2005 was the last peak, and then the decline in jobs started kept up until
2010. You blame Obama for 2005, 2006, and 2007? Wow.

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

Yet they'll do it anyways. So now what are you going to do about it?

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

YOUR bottom line point. That is all that is worth.

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

So, pro-choice up until you say so, then it's pro-life. That's a good one.

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

Let's note who's name calling first here, so that when you start crying that
everyone is jumping on you, belittling you, and calling you names that we have
it documented where and how it started.

Anyhow, I'm far from leftist. But anyone that doesn't seem to agree with you
tends to fit into that category, so we'll just go with it to keep your panties
from getting bunched up.

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

Again, says you. And while you're off in your own little diluded world, we'll
all continue on with our normal lives. Mmkay?

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

You put in exceptions and provisions where you see fit?

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

That's too bad. But here you start crying again, even though I never
"pronounced" anything of you. I merely discussed (with Ross to start, until you
jumped in) the differences between the two sides, and hypocrisy of taking
certain points from each side to combine them into anyone's own beliefs.
There's one or the other. If someone isn't strong to either side, make up a new
one called "pro-maybe", I don't care much either way.

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

But did you do anything of the sort? No. You just came to Fido to vent your
frustrations onto people that ignore you 99% of the time anyways. That's
"gittin er dun!" man!

Regards,
Nick

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20130910
 * Origin: thePharcyde_ telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin) (1:154/701)