Science > Abortion > Teens Cope With Unwanted Pregnancies Better Than Abortions, Study Shows
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
11 Aug 2006 02:49:40 PM |
| Object: |
Teens Cope With Unwanted Pregnancies Better Than Abortions, Study Shows |
http://www.lifenews.com/nat2494.html
Bowling Green, OH (LifeNews.com) -- A new study published in the Journal of
Youth and Adolescence refutes a long-standing contention that teenagers are
better able to handle an abortion than dealing with an unplanned pregnancy.
The study finds that adolescent girls who have an abortion are five times
more likely to seek help for psychological and emotional problems than those
who keep their baby.
Dr. Priscilla Coleman, a research psychologist at Bowling Green State
University, led the study.
Coleman also found that teenagers who have abortions instead of carrying the
pregnancy to term were also over three times more likely to report
subsequent trouble sleeping, and nine times more likely to report subsequent
marijuana use.
To factor out other reasons that may have prompted the need for
psychological help, sleep difficulties or drug use, Coleman examined 17
other variables such as prior mental health history and family factors.
That helped narrow down the study to make sure it focused only on the
results after the abortion or birth decision.
Data for the study came from a federally-funded longitudinal study of
adolescents from throughout the U.S. who participated in two series of
interviews in 1995 and 1996.
About 76 percent of girls who had abortions and 80 percent of girls who gave
birth were between the ages of 15 and 19 during the survey and the rest were
younger teenagers.
Previous studies have found that younger abortion patients may be more
likely to experience difficulties coping after abortion compared to older
women. That may be because they are more likely to be pressured into
unwanted abortions or to undergo abortions later in the pregnancy, leading
to more physical and emotional risk.
A 2004 survey of American and Russian women published in the Medical Science
Monitor found that 64 percent of American women reported that they felt
pressured into abortion.
Coleman said that for teens, the pressure probably comes from the fact that
they are more likely to be perceived as unready to be parents and that
abortion is often seen by those around them as the best solution.
"When women feel forced into abortion by others or by life circumstances,
negative post-abortion outcomes become more common," she wrote. "Adolescents
are generally much less prepared to assume the responsibility of parenthood
and are logically the recipients of pressure to abort."
Coleman pointed out that, while having a child as a teen may be problematic,
"the risks of terminating seem to be even more pronounced."
"The scientific evidence is now strong and compelling," Coleman said.
"Abortion poses more risks to women than giving birth."
In a statement LifeNews.com obtained, Dr. David Reardon, the director of the
Elliot Institute, said that Coleman's study was particularly important
because it examines pregnancy "wantedness."
"Over the last six years, numerous studies have conclusively linked higher
rates of mental illness and behavioral problems associated with abortion
compared to childbirth," Reardon, who has contributed to more than a dozen
studies examining psychological outcomes after abortion, said.
"But abortion advocates have generally dismissed these findings, insisting
that while women who abort may fare worse than women who give birth to
planned children, they may fare better than the important subgroup of women
who carry unintended pregnancies to term," Reardon explained. "Coleman's
study addresses this argument and shows that the facts don't support
abortion advocates' speculations."
The results of the study are also important because about one-fourth of the
abortions that take place annually in the United States are done on
teenagers, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a Planned Parenthood
affiliate.
As such, the study shows that teenagers should be advised to not have an
abortion in order to avoid both short and long-term emotional and
psychological complications.
Source: Priscilla K. Coleman, "Resolution of Unwanted Pregnancy During
Adolescence Through Abortion Versus Childbirth: Individual and Family
Predictors and Psychological Consequences," Journal of Youth and Adolescence
(2006).
--
----------
J Yöung
youngopinions@aol.com
.
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Cope With Unwanted Pregnancies Better Than Abortions, Study Shows |
14 Aug 2006 11:13:26 PM |
|
|
<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
http://www.lifenews.com/nat2494.html
Bowling Green, OH (LifeNews.com) -- A new study published in the Journal of
Youth and Adolescence refutes a long-standing contention that teenagers are
better able to handle an abortion than dealing with an unplanned pregnancy.
Pro-liar Jopn Young didn't read the article. If he had then he'd have
noticed that the article specifically lays the blame for emotional
problems with LACK OF CHOICE.
Previous studies have found that younger abortion patients may be
more likely to experience difficulties coping after abortion
compared to older women. That may be because they are more likely
to be pressured into unwanted abortions or to undergo abortions
later in the pregnancy, leading to more physical and emotional
risk.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Cope (Pro-lie disinformation) |
14 Aug 2006 11:22:45 PM |
|
|
<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
http://www.lifenews.com/nat2494.html
Bowling Green, OH (LifeNews.com) -- A new study published in the Journal of
I wonder why there is no such article in that journal.
http://springerlink.metapress.com/content/1573-6601/
Source: Priscilla K. Coleman, "Resolution of Unwanted Pregnancy During
Adolescence Through Abortion Versus Childbirth: Individual and Family
Predictors and Psychological Consequences," Journal of Youth and Adolescence
(2006).
Could it be that LifeNews was ... lyingm again?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Hicken" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Cope (Pro-lie disinformation) |
19 Aug 2006 06:34:02 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
http://www.lifenews.com/nat2494.html
Bowling Green, OH (LifeNews.com) -- A new study published in the Journal of
I wonder why there is no such article in that journal.
http://springerlink.metapress.com/content/1573-6601/
Source: Priscilla K. Coleman, "Resolution of Unwanted Pregnancy During
Adolescence Through Abortion Versus Childbirth: Individual and Family
Predictors and Psychological Consequences," Journal of Youth and Adolescence
(2006).
Could it be that LifeNews was ... lyingm again?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
Actually, here is the article:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/8544jgr138u84345/?p=d4f322cbfd294f9a987d04a67389d976&pi=0
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lisbeth Andersson" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Cope With Unwanted Pregnancies Better Than Abortions, Study Shows |
13 Aug 2006 06:01:10 AM |
|
|
<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in
news:6bydnZBHnNcIQkHZnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@giganews.com:
<....>
A 2004 survey of American and Russian women published in the
Medical Science Monitor found that 64 percent of American women
reported that they felt pressured into abortion.
<....>
For some reason the above paragraph jumped out of the text. Is that
really what the author meant to say? It seems wrong somehow.
Lisbeth.
----
The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die.
*What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Choicers Pressure Women To the Max |
13 Aug 2006 06:37:09 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns981E8DF3FE979lisandbredbandnet@66.150.105.47>,
lisand@bredband.net says...
<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in
news:6bydnZBHnNcIQkHZnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@giganews.com:
<....>
A 2004 survey of American and Russian women published in the
Medical Science Monitor found that 64 percent of American women
reported that they felt pressured into abortion.
<....>
For some reason the above paragraph jumped out of the text. Is that
really what the author meant to say? It seems wrong somehow.
It sounds like they meant to say, 64% of women who have had abortions
felt pressured. It still sounds dubious and vague at best. However,
even if it were true, anti-choicers want to pressure 100% of women into
not having abortion through fatwahs and dictatorial government invasion
of our personal lives. I know, I know, repugs don't believe that the
right to privacy exists, (except when they get in trouble with the law.)
Maybe doctors or husbands or boyfriends do try to persuade women to get
abortions, but that's not even on the radar screen, when it comes to
fundies campaigning to throw women in jail for life if they have
abortions. They've already outlawed abortions in South Dakota and
restricted it in many other states. They're in no position to complain
about coercion on the other side.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lisbeth Andersson" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Choicers Pressure Women To the Max |
14 Aug 2006 11:20:09 AM |
|
|
Followups set.
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1f49659078ae0fa7989beb@news.readfreenews.net:
In article <Xns981E8DF3FE979lisandbredbandnet@66.150.105.47>,
lisand@bredband.net says...
<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in
news:6bydnZBHnNcIQkHZnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@giganews.com:
<....>
A 2004 survey of American and Russian women published in the
Medical Science Monitor found that 64 percent of American
women reported that they felt pressured into abortion.
<....>
For some reason the above paragraph jumped out of the text. Is
that really what the author meant to say? It seems wrong
somehow.
It sounds like they meant to say, 64% of women who have had
abortions felt pressured. It still sounds dubious and vague at
best. However, even if it were true, anti-choicers want to
pressure 100% of women into not having abortion through fatwahs
and dictatorial government invasion of our personal lives. I
know, I know, repugs don't believe that the right to privacy
exists, (except when they get in trouble with the law.) Maybe
doctors or husbands or boyfriends do try to persuade women to get
abortions, but that's not even on the radar screen, when it comes
Husbands and boyfriends have the right to have an opinion about it.
After all, a woman who is considering having an abortion needs to
factor in what kind of support she is likely to get from the
prospective father before she makes her decision. Doctors are
supposed to inform the pregnant woman if there are any medical
risks with the pregnancy, either if there is a threat to her health
or if there are any problems with the fetus. I cannot imagine a
doctor recommending an abortion unless s/he has discovered some
(serious) problem. Any doctor who discovers serious problems in a
pregnancy and does not menion the possibility of an abortion should
have his/her licence revoked. Of course, once the doctor has
mentioned the alternatives s/he should keep out of the decision.
to fundies campaigning to throw women in jail for life if they
have abortions. They've already outlawed abortions in South
Dakota and restricted it in many other states. They're in no
position to complain about coercion on the other side.
What really pisses me off is that the people who objects the
loudest to abortions are usually the same people who objects to the
most effective ways of reducing the numbers: sex education for all
kids, and easy to get, cheap contraceptives. If the kids are going
to "just say no" (yeah, right) they need to know what they are
supposed to say no to.
Lisbeth.
----
The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die.
*What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "lein" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Choicers Pressure Women To the Max |
15 Aug 2006 12:17:12 AM |
|
|
Lisbeth Andersson wrote:
Followups set.
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1f49659078ae0fa7989beb@news.readfreenews.net:
In article <Xns981E8DF3FE979lisandbredbandnet@66.150.105.47>,
lisand@bredband.net says...
<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in
news:6bydnZBHnNcIQkHZnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@giganews.com:
<....>
A 2004 survey of American and Russian women published in the
Medical Science Monitor found that 64 percent of American
women reported that they felt pressured into abortion.
<....>
For some reason the above paragraph jumped out of the text. Is
that really what the author meant to say? It seems wrong
somehow.
It sounds like they meant to say, 64% of women who have had
abortions felt pressured. It still sounds dubious and vague at
best. However, even if it were true, anti-choicers want to
pressure 100% of women into not having abortion through fatwahs
and dictatorial government invasion of our personal lives. I
know, I know, repugs don't believe that the right to privacy
exists, (except when they get in trouble with the law.) Maybe
doctors or husbands or boyfriends do try to persuade women to get
abortions, but that's not even on the radar screen, when it comes
Husbands and boyfriends have the right to have an opinion about it.
After all, a woman who is considering having an abortion needs to
factor in what kind of support she is likely to get from the
prospective father before she makes her decision. Doctors are
supposed to inform the pregnant woman if there are any medical
risks with the pregnancy, either if there is a threat to her health
or if there are any problems with the fetus. I cannot imagine a
doctor recommending an abortion unless s/he has discovered some
(serious) problem. Any doctor who discovers serious problems in a
pregnancy and does not menion the possibility of an abortion should
have his/her licence revoked. Of course, once the doctor has
mentioned the alternatives s/he should keep out of the decision.
Should a doctor be required to advice the woman of the remorse she may
feel years later and the possiblility that it could lead to severe
depression.
to fundies campaigning to throw women in jail for life if they
have abortions. They've already outlawed abortions in South
Dakota and restricted it in many other states. They're in no
position to complain about coercion on the other side.
What really pisses me off is that the people who objects the
loudest to abortions are usually the same people who objects to the
most effective ways of reducing the numbers: sex education for all
kids, and easy to get, cheap contraceptives. If the kids are going
to "just say no" (yeah, right) they need to know what they are
supposed to say no to.
Let's let these same kids watch an actual abortion as part of their
education.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lobby Dosser" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Choicers Pressure Women To the Max |
13 Aug 2006 10:49:23 PM |
|
|
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
It sounds like they meant to say, 64% of women who have had abortions
felt pressured. It still sounds dubious and vague at best. However,
even if it were true, anti-choicers want to pressure 100% of women into
not having abortion through fatwahs and dictatorial government invasion
of our personal lives.
IOW, you'll Ignore inconvenient truths.
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Choicers Pressure Women To the Max |
14 Aug 2006 01:28:10 AM |
|
|
In article <7pSDg.6998$5M.1050@trnddc02>,
says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
It sounds like they meant to say, 64% of women who have had abortions
felt pressured. It still sounds dubious and vague at best. However,
even if it were true, anti-choicers want to pressure 100% of women into
not having abortion through fatwahs and dictatorial government invasion
of our personal lives.
IOW, you'll Ignore inconvenient truths.
I haven't ignored anything. Rather, I've merely pointed out that the
anti-abortion stance is a far greater ignorance of reality than the minor
short-comings of pro-choice. To use the amusing language of xianity, you
strain at a gnat, while swallowing a camel.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lobby Dosser" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Choicers Pressure Women To the Max |
14 Aug 2006 05:08:46 AM |
|
|
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <7pSDg.6998$5M.1050@trnddc02>,
lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
It sounds like they meant to say, 64% of women who have had
abortions felt pressured. It still sounds dubious and vague at
best. However, even if it were true, anti-choicers want to
pressure 100% of women into not having abortion through fatwahs and
dictatorial government invasion of our personal lives.
IOW, you'll Ignore inconvenient truths.
I haven't ignored anything. Rather, I've merely pointed out that the
anti-abortion stance is a far greater ignorance of reality than the
minor short-comings of pro-choice. To use the amusing language of
xianity, you strain at a gnat, while swallowing a camel.
You didn't say 'dubious', 'vague', 'anti-choicers want to pressure'?
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Choicers Pressure Women To the Max |
14 Aug 2006 11:07:05 AM |
|
|
In article <OYXDg.28485$zc2.7071@trnddc06>,
lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <7pSDg.6998$5M.1050@trnddc02>,
lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
It sounds like they meant to say, 64% of women who have had
abortions felt pressured. It still sounds dubious and vague at
best. However, even if it were true, anti-choicers want to
pressure 100% of women into not having abortion through fatwahs and
dictatorial government invasion of our personal lives.
IOW, you'll Ignore inconvenient truths.
I haven't ignored anything. Rather, I've merely pointed out that the
anti-abortion stance is a far greater ignorance of reality than the
minor short-comings of pro-choice. To use the amusing language of
xianity, you strain at a gnat, while swallowing a camel.
You didn't say 'dubious', 'vague', 'anti-choicers want to pressure'?
Try to make sense next time, you fucking moron. Taking those words in
isolation means nothing. The claims by the anti-choicers were vauge and
dubious at best. What do they mean by "pressured", especially compared
to theo-fascists who want to want to pressure women not to have abortion
with the full aparatus of the dictatorial police state.
Are you telling me that legally forbidding choice for women is somehow
not a form of "pressure" and coercion?
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lobby Dosser" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Choicers Pressure Women To the Max |
14 Aug 2006 07:37:24 PM |
|
|
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <OYXDg.28485$zc2.7071@trnddc06>,
lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <7pSDg.6998$5M.1050@trnddc02>,
lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
It sounds like they meant to say, 64% of women who have had
abortions felt pressured. It still sounds dubious and vague at
best. However, even if it were true, anti-choicers want to
pressure 100% of women into not having abortion through fatwahs
and dictatorial government invasion of our personal lives.
IOW, you'll Ignore inconvenient truths.
I haven't ignored anything. Rather, I've merely pointed out that
the anti-abortion stance is a far greater ignorance of reality than
the minor short-comings of pro-choice. To use the amusing language
of xianity, you strain at a gnat, while swallowing a camel.
You didn't say 'dubious', 'vague', 'anti-choicers want to pressure'?
Try to make sense next time, you fucking moron.
Try answering the question.
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Choicers Pressure Women To the Max |
14 Aug 2006 08:59:52 PM |
|
|
In article <8H8Eg.69785$MW.55880@trnddc04>,
lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <OYXDg.28485$zc2.7071@trnddc06>,
lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <7pSDg.6998$5M.1050@trnddc02>,
lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
It sounds like they meant to say, 64% of women who have had
abortions felt pressured. It still sounds dubious and vague at
best. However, even if it were true, anti-choicers want to
pressure 100% of women into not having abortion through fatwahs
and dictatorial government invasion of our personal lives.
IOW, you'll Ignore inconvenient truths.
I haven't ignored anything. Rather, I've merely pointed out that
the anti-abortion stance is a far greater ignorance of reality than
the minor short-comings of pro-choice. To use the amusing language
of xianity, you strain at a gnat, while swallowing a camel.
You didn't say 'dubious', 'vague', 'anti-choicers want to pressure'?
Try to make sense next time, you fucking moron.
Try answering the question.
I did address your ridiculous "question", you fucking moron.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lobby Dosser" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Choicers Pressure Women To the Max |
15 Aug 2006 01:01:16 AM |
|
|
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <8H8Eg.69785$MW.55880@trnddc04>,
lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <OYXDg.28485$zc2.7071@trnddc06>,
lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <7pSDg.6998$5M.1050@trnddc02>,
lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
It sounds like they meant to say, 64% of women who have had
abortions felt pressured. It still sounds dubious and vague
at best. However, even if it were true, anti-choicers want
to pressure 100% of women into not having abortion through
fatwahs and dictatorial government invasion of our personal
lives.
IOW, you'll Ignore inconvenient truths.
I haven't ignored anything. Rather, I've merely pointed out
that the anti-abortion stance is a far greater ignorance of
reality than the minor short-comings of pro-choice. To use the
amusing language of xianity, you strain at a gnat, while
swallowing a camel.
You didn't say 'dubious', 'vague', 'anti-choicers want to
pressure'?
Try to make sense next time, you fucking moron.
Try answering the question.
I did address your ridiculous "question", you fucking moron.
Try answering the question.
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Choicers Pressure Women To the Max |
15 Aug 2006 07:39:27 AM |
|
|
In article <MqdEg.12671$hH1.4036@trnddc08>,
lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <8H8Eg.69785$MW.55880@trnddc04>,
lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <OYXDg.28485$zc2.7071@trnddc06>,
lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <7pSDg.6998$5M.1050@trnddc02>,
lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
It sounds like they meant to say, 64% of women who have had
abortions felt pressured. It still sounds dubious and vague
at best. However, even if it were true, anti-choicers want
to pressure 100% of women into not having abortion through
fatwahs and dictatorial government invasion of our personal
lives.
IOW, you'll Ignore inconvenient truths.
I haven't ignored anything. Rather, I've merely pointed out
that the anti-abortion stance is a far greater ignorance of
reality than the minor short-comings of pro-choice. To use the
amusing language of xianity, you strain at a gnat, while
swallowing a camel.
You didn't say 'dubious', 'vague', 'anti-choicers want to
pressure'?
Try to make sense next time, you fucking moron.
Try answering the question.
I did address your ridiculous "question", you fucking moron.
Try answering the question.
I did answer it despite the fact that your question was largely
nonsensical and based upon the fallacy of citation out of context. I
said, in part, "Taking those words in isolation means nothing. The
claims by the anti-choicers were vauge and dubious at best. What do they
mean by 'pressured', especially compared to theo-fascists who want to
want to pressure women not to have abortion with the full aparatus of the
dictatorial police state?"
The fact that you're too stupid to deal with that answer doesn't mean
that I dodged your question. You asked if I said some words and I
explained the usage. But you have no other trick than to mindlessly
repeat yourself and act like there is something wrong with saying words
like "vague" and "dubious".
How about you answer this question:
How does giving women a private, reproductive choice oppress them more
than a total ban on abortion, imposed by unilateral government decree and
active police state coercion, as anti-choicers advocate?
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "robpar" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Choicers Pressure Women To the Max |
15 Aug 2006 09:57:30 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 06:39:27 -0600, quibbler
<quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <MqdEg.12671$hH1.4036@trnddc08>,
lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In the article women said they felt pressured. No
indication of who pressured them to do what. They well could
have been pressured to not have an abortion. Which is very
common. I know of no Pro-choice efforts to pressure women
into having an abortion.
The Local Family Planning Clinic is careful to always
explain all alternatives, to any woman/girl seeking help.
It also indicated that most came from homes that are
religious, and felt guilty for going against what they were
taught to believe.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lobby Dosser" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Choicers Pressure Women To the Max |
15 Aug 2006 06:25:57 PM |
|
|
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <MqdEg.12671$hH1.4036@trnddc08>,
lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <8H8Eg.69785$MW.55880@trnddc04>,
lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <OYXDg.28485$zc2.7071@trnddc06>,
lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <7pSDg.6998$5M.1050@trnddc02>,
lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
It sounds like they meant to say, 64% of women who have
had abortions felt pressured. It still sounds dubious and
vague at best. However, even if it were true,
anti-choicers want to pressure 100% of women into not
having abortion through fatwahs and dictatorial government
invasion of our personal lives.
IOW, you'll Ignore inconvenient truths.
I haven't ignored anything. Rather, I've merely pointed out
that the anti-abortion stance is a far greater ignorance of
reality than the minor short-comings of pro-choice. To use
the amusing language of xianity, you strain at a gnat, while
swallowing a camel.
You didn't say 'dubious', 'vague', 'anti-choicers want to
pressure'?
Try to make sense next time, you fucking moron.
Try answering the question.
I did address your ridiculous "question", you fucking moron.
Try answering the question.
I did answer it despite the fact that your question was largely
nonsensical and based upon the fallacy of citation out of context. I
said, in part, "Taking those words in isolation means nothing. The
claims by the anti-choicers were vauge and dubious at best. What do
they mean by 'pressured', especially compared to theo-fascists who
want to want to pressure women not to have abortion with the full
aparatus of the dictatorial police state?"
Theo-fascists? Dictatorial police state?
The fact that you're too stupid to deal with that answer doesn't mean
that I dodged your question. You asked if I said some words and I
explained the usage. But you have no other trick than to mindlessly
repeat yourself and act like there is something wrong with saying
words like "vague" and "dubious".
How about you answer this question:
How does giving women a private, reproductive choice oppress them more
than a total ban on abortion, imposed by unilateral government decree
and active police state coercion, as anti-choicers advocate?
Police state? Where?
Say, you wouldn't be one of those Hysterical Liberals would you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Choicers Pressure Women To the Max |
15 Aug 2006 11:15:29 PM |
|
|
In article <9KsEg.8121$5M.2417@trnddc02>,
says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <MqdEg.12671$hH1.4036@trnddc08>,
says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <8H8Eg.69785$MW.55880@trnddc04>,
says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <OYXDg.28485$zc2.7071@trnddc06>,
says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <7pSDg.6998$5M.1050@trnddc02>,
says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
It sounds like they meant to say, 64% of women who have
had abortions felt pressured. It still sounds dubious and
vague at best. However, even if it were true,
anti-choicers want to pressure 100% of women into not
having abortion through fatwahs and dictatorial government
invasion of our personal lives.
IOW, you'll Ignore inconvenient truths.
I haven't ignored anything. Rather, I've merely pointed out
that the anti-abortion stance is a far greater ignorance of
reality than the minor short-comings of pro-choice. To use
the amusing language of xianity, you strain at a gnat, while
swallowing a camel.
You didn't say 'dubious', 'vague', 'anti-choicers want to
pressure'?
Try to make sense next time, you fucking moron.
Try answering the question.
I did address your ridiculous "question", you fucking moron.
Try answering the question.
I did answer it despite the fact that your question was largely
nonsensical and based upon the fallacy of citation out of context. I
said, in part, "Taking those words in isolation means nothing. The
claims by the anti-choicers were vauge and dubious at best. What do
they mean by 'pressured', especially compared to theo-fascists who
want to want to pressure women not to have abortion with the full
aparatus of the dictatorial police state?"
Theo-fascists?
It is redundant, for the most part, since theism seems to breed fascism
and fascism often promotes compulsory theism.
Dictatorial police state?
You know, like declaring that we are in a permanent state of war, despite
the fact that war against a tactic, despite the fact that war has not
been formally declared.
The fact that you're too stupid to deal with that answer doesn't mean
that I dodged your question. You asked if I said some words and I
explained the usage. But you have no other trick than to mindlessly
repeat yourself and act like there is something wrong with saying
words like "vague" and "dubious".
How about you answer this question:
How does giving women a private, reproductive choice oppress them more
than a total ban on abortion, imposed by unilateral government decree
and active police state coercion, as anti-choicers advocate?
Police state?
Theocracy is the biggest, most intrusive form of government that there
is. They are obsessed with watching everybody, tapping phones, reading
email, etc, not to find "terrorists", but to continue to terrorize their
citizens at their neo-cratic whim.
Where?
It hasn't yet been completed, but the Unpatriot act, the phony state of
war as a pretext to defend the constitution and the attempts by the
executive to abrogate hundreds of laws are all just ways of testing the
political waters.
Say, you wouldn't be one of those Hysterical Liberals would you?
Nope, I'm just way smarter than you, but then again, so is everyone else
on Earth.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lobby Dosser" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Choicers Pressure Women To the Max |
16 Aug 2006 02:00:20 AM |
|
|
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <9KsEg.8121$5M.2417@trnddc02>,
lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <MqdEg.12671$hH1.4036@trnddc08>,
lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <8H8Eg.69785$MW.55880@trnddc04>,
lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <OYXDg.28485$zc2.7071@trnddc06>,
lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <7pSDg.6998$5M.1050@trnddc02>,
lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
It sounds like they meant to say, 64% of women who have
had abortions felt pressured. It still sounds dubious
and vague at best. However, even if it were true,
anti-choicers want to pressure 100% of women into not
having abortion through fatwahs and dictatorial
government invasion of our personal lives.
IOW, you'll Ignore inconvenient truths.
I haven't ignored anything. Rather, I've merely pointed
out that the anti-abortion stance is a far greater
ignorance of reality than the minor short-comings of
pro-choice. To use the amusing language of xianity, you
strain at a gnat, while swallowing a camel.
You didn't say 'dubious', 'vague', 'anti-choicers want to
pressure'?
Try to make sense next time, you fucking moron.
Try answering the question.
I did address your ridiculous "question", you fucking moron.
Try answering the question.
I did answer it despite the fact that your question was largely
nonsensical and based upon the fallacy of citation out of context.
I said, in part, "Taking those words in isolation means nothing.
The claims by the anti-choicers were vauge and dubious at best.
What do they mean by 'pressured', especially compared to
theo-fascists who want to want to pressure women not to have
abortion with the full aparatus of the dictatorial police state?"
Theo-fascists?
It is redundant, for the most part, since theism seems to breed
fascism and fascism often promotes compulsory theism.
Maybe so, but where? Iran?
Dictatorial police state?
You know, like declaring that we are in a permanent state of war,
despite the fact that war against a tactic, despite the fact that war
has not been formally declared.
Are you trying to say that the US is a dictatorial police state? If you
are, you need some remedial history and/or current events.
The fact that you're too stupid to deal with that answer doesn't
mean that I dodged your question. You asked if I said some words
and I explained the usage. But you have no other trick than to
mindlessly repeat yourself and act like there is something wrong
with saying words like "vague" and "dubious".
How about you answer this question:
How does giving women a private, reproductive choice oppress them
more than a total ban on abortion, imposed by unilateral government
decree and active police state coercion, as anti-choicers advocate?
Police state?
Theocracy is the biggest, most intrusive form of government that there
is. They are obsessed with watching everybody, tapping phones,
reading email, etc, not to find "terrorists", but to continue to
terrorize their citizens at their neo-cratic whim.
Where?
It hasn't yet been completed, but the Unpatriot act, the phony state
of war as a pretext to defend the constitution and the attempts by the
executive to abrogate hundreds of laws are all just ways of testing
the political waters.
Ahhh! The Black Helicopters. Though I don't suppose yours will be from
the UN.
Say, you wouldn't be one of those Hysterical Liberals would you?
Nope, I'm just way smarter than you, but then again, so is everyone
else on Earth.
IOW, you are more than just a Hysterical Liberal. You are a Paranoid,
Hysterical Liberal.
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Choicers Pressure Women To the Max |
16 Aug 2006 08:04:22 AM |
|
|
In article <8ozEg.70148$MW.30@trnddc04>,
says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <9KsEg.8121$5M.2417@trnddc02>,
says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <MqdEg.12671$hH1.4036@trnddc08>,
says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <8H8Eg.69785$MW.55880@trnddc04>,
says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <OYXDg.28485$zc2.7071@trnddc06>,
says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <7pSDg.6998$5M.1050@trnddc02>,
says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
It sounds like they meant to say, 64% of women who have
had abortions felt pressured. It still sounds dubious
and vague at best. However, even if it were true,
anti-choicers want to pressure 100% of women into not
having abortion through fatwahs and dictatorial
government invasion of our personal lives.
IOW, you'll Ignore inconvenient truths.
I haven't ignored anything. Rather, I've merely pointed
out that the anti-abortion stance is a far greater
ignorance of reality than the minor short-comings of
pro-choice. To use the amusing language of xianity, you
strain at a gnat, while swallowing a camel.
You didn't say 'dubious', 'vague', 'anti-choicers want to
pressure'?
Try to make sense next time, you fucking moron.
Try answering the question.
I did address your ridiculous "question", you fucking moron.
Try answering the question.
I did answer it despite the fact that your question was largely
nonsensical and based upon the fallacy of citation out of context.
I said, in part, "Taking those words in isolation means nothing.
The claims by the anti-choicers were vauge and dubious at best.
What do they mean by 'pressured', especially compared to
theo-fascists who want to want to pressure women not to have
abortion with the full aparatus of the dictatorial police state?"
Theo-fascists?
It is redundant, for the most part, since theism seems to breed
fascism and fascism often promotes compulsory theism.
Maybe so, but where? Iran?
They have Hezbollah, the "Party of God". We have GOP. God's Obnoxious
Party.
Dictatorial police state?
You know, like declaring that we are in a permanent state of war,
despite the fact that war against a tactic, despite the fact that war
has not been formally declared.
Are you trying to say that the US is a dictatorial police state?
No, fool, they haven't achieved it yet which I explained, despite your
lack of reading comprehension. That you are surprised by the revelation
that the declaration of a phony was a tactic to aggregate power and are
still asking stupid questions, like the one above shows that you are
utterly out of touch and haven't used your brain in a long time.
If you
are,
I wasn't. I explained that they were "testing the political waters", but
you're obviously too stupid to have paid attention to that.
you need some remedial history and/or current events.
It's extremely likely that I'm far better aquainted with both history and
present events than you are. That's why I realize there is a problem,
whereas you haven't got a clue.
The fact that you're too stupid to deal with that answer doesn't
mean that I dodged your question. You asked if I said some words
and I explained the usage. But you have no other trick than to
mindlessly repeat yourself and act like there is something wrong
with saying words like "vague" and "dubious".
How about you answer this question:
How does giving women a private, reproductive choice oppress them
more than a total ban on abortion, imposed by unilateral government
decree and active police state coercion, as anti-choicers advocate?
Police state?
Theocracy is the biggest, most intrusive form of government that there
is. They are obsessed with watching everybody, tapping phones,
reading email, etc, not to find "terrorists", but to continue to
terrorize their citizens at their neo-cratic whim.
Where?
It hasn't yet been completed, but the Unpatriot act, the phony state
of war as a pretext to defend the constitution and the attempts by the
executive to abrogate hundreds of laws are all just ways of testing
the political waters.
Ahhh! The Black Helicopters.
As even you acknowledge, those were the bogey men of the fringe reich-
wing, worried that a "new world order" would threaten their only petty
and jealously guarded feudal powers.
Though I don't suppose yours will be from
the UN.
No, because the UN might be the one organization which would have a shot
at equitably resolving most conflicts in the world. That's the reason
that neocons are determined to never permit them the power or the
resources to do that. They might create a federal system of the nation
states of the world, similar to the US and that would make it hard for us
to play the unilateral bully boy role anymore.
Say, you wouldn't be one of those Hysterical Liberals would you?
Nope, I'm just way smarter than you, but then again, so is everyone
else on Earth.
IOW, you are more than just a Hysterical Liberal.
No, it's actually just that most things you neocons say are hysterically
funny, in your own very unintentionally clumsy and uninformed way.
You are a Paranoid,
Hysterical Liberal.
Nope. You just have nothing to say, so you indulge in this kind of throw
away, boilerplate commentary/talking points. And you still can't explain
why you mindlessly oppose abortion.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "robpar" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Choicers Pressure Women To the Max |
16 Aug 2006 11:28:44 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 07:00:20 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
Theo-fascists?
It is redundant, for the most part, since theism seems to breed
fascism and fascism often promotes compulsory theism.
Maybe so, but where? Iran?
Any place where religion has gained a strangle hold,
regresses in to a Fascist Police State that enforces
religious beliefs. And freedom of religion, is the first
freedom lost.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lobby Dosser" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Choicers Pressure Women To the Max |
16 Aug 2006 09:34:52 PM |
|
|
robpar <robpar@netportusa.com> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 07:00:20 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
Theo-fascists?
It is redundant, for the most part, since theism seems to breed
fascism and fascism often promotes compulsory theism.
Maybe so, but where? Iran?
Any place where religion has gained a strangle hold,
regresses in to a Fascist Police State that enforces
religious beliefs. And freedom of religion, is the first
freedom lost.
So not the US.
.
|
|
|
| User: "robpar" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Choicers Pressure Women To the Max |
17 Aug 2006 11:44:30 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 02:34:52 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
robpar <robpar@netportusa.com> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 07:00:20 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
Theo-fascists?
It is redundant, for the most part, since theism seems to breed
fascism and fascism often promotes compulsory theism.
Maybe so, but where? Iran?
Any place where religion has gained a strangle hold,
regresses in to a Fascist Police State that enforces
religious beliefs. And freedom of religion, is the first
freedom lost.
So not the US.
But the religious nuts are working toward a theocracy, only
freedom of religion will save us, because the self righteous
religious bigots will never agree, to agree.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "robpar" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Choicers Pressure Women To the Max |
16 Aug 2006 11:21:20 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 23:25:57 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <MqdEg.12671$hH1.4036@trnddc08>,
lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <8H8Eg.69785$MW.55880@trnddc04>,
lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <OYXDg.28485$zc2.7071@trnddc06>,
lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <7pSDg.6998$5M.1050@trnddc02>,
lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
I did answer it despite the fact that your question was largely
nonsensical and based upon the fallacy of citation out of context. I
said, in part, "Taking those words in isolation means nothing. The
claims by the anti-choicers were vauge and dubious at best. What do
they mean by 'pressured', especially compared to theo-fascists who
want to want to pressure women not to have abortion with the full
aparatus of the dictatorial police state?"
Theo-fascists? Dictatorial police state?
The fact that you're too stupid to deal with that answer doesn't mean
that I dodged your question. You asked if I said some words and I
explained the usage. But you have no other trick than to mindlessly
repeat yourself and act like there is something wrong with saying
words like "vague" and "dubious".
How about you answer this question:
How does giving women a private, reproductive choice oppress them more
than a total ban on abortion, imposed by unilateral government decree
and active police state coercion, as anti-choicers advocate?
Police state? Where?
Say, you wouldn't be one of those Hysterical Liberals would you?
Sound like a sane reasonable person wasting time with a
Idiot. Clue if any member of a society can be forced by the
police, to do some thing possibly harmful to them selves,
you have Police State.
It's rather obvious that you are a self righteous Christian
bigot that long for a Police State Theocracy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lobby Dosser" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Choicers Pressure Women To the Max |
16 Aug 2006 09:36:02 PM |
|
|
robpar <robpar@netportusa.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 23:25:57 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <MqdEg.12671$hH1.4036@trnddc08>,
lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <8H8Eg.69785$MW.55880@trnddc04>,
lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <OYXDg.28485$zc2.7071@trnddc06>,
lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <7pSDg.6998$5M.1050@trnddc02>,
lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
I did answer it despite the fact that your question was largely
nonsensical and based upon the fallacy of citation out of context.
I said, in part, "Taking those words in isolation means nothing.
The claims by the anti-choicers were vauge and dubious at best.
What do they mean by 'pressured', especially compared to
theo-fascists who want to want to pressure women not to have
abortion with the full aparatus of the dictatorial police state?"
Theo-fascists? Dictatorial police state?
The fact that you're too stupid to deal with that answer doesn't
mean that I dodged your question. You asked if I said some words
and I explained the usage. But you have no other trick than to
mindlessly repeat yourself and act like there is something wrong
with saying words like "vague" and "dubious".
How about you answer this question:
How does giving women a private, reproductive choice oppress them
more than a total ban on abortion, imposed by unilateral government
decree and active police state coercion, as anti-choicers advocate?
Police state? Where?
Say, you wouldn't be one of those Hysterical Liberals would you?
Sound like a sane reasonable person wasting time with a
Idiot. Clue if any member of a society can be forced by the
police, to do some thing possibly harmful to them selves,
you have Police State.
It's rather obvious that you are a self righteous Christian
bigot that long for a Police State Theocracy.
The obvious is that you don't know WTF you're talking about.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Choicers Pressure Women To the Max |
14 Aug 2006 05:29:42 AM |
|
|
quibbler wrote:
In article <7pSDg.6998$5M.1050@trnddc02>,
says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
It sounds like they meant to say, 64% of women who have had abortions
felt pressured. It still sounds dubious and vague at best. However,
even if it were true, anti-choicers want to pressure 100% of women into
not having abortion through fatwahs and dictatorial government invasion
of our personal lives.
IOW, you'll Ignore inconvenient truths.
I haven't ignored anything. Rather, I've merely pointed out that the
anti-abortion stance is a far greater ignorance of reality than the minor
short-comings of pro-choice. To use the amusing language of xianity, you
strain at a gnat, while swallowing a camel.
You should read what the actual report says. The difference in
psychological effect between the Russian women (in a society where it's
not a big deal) and American women is astounding. I didn't get to see
Jon's original post but I'm guessing it was a) cut-and-paste from
Lifenews and b) nowhere near giving an accurate representation of what
the study was about or actually said.
By way of comparison (which I doubt Jon mentioned), only 37% of Russian
women felt pressured. Read the report. As an indictment of American
"morality" and anti-choice rhetoric, it's pretty good.
http://www.medscimonit.com/medscimonit/modules.php?name=Current_Issue&d_op=summary&id=4923
(full text is in PDF so I'm not going to link it, but pull it up and read)
--
--sexkitten--
Sneechres and the art of projection- part 4
1130732777.897897.129520@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Psychologists call it"leveling." You either have to inflate your own
sense of self-worth
somehow or try and bring others down to you.
<1414fd53.0207102116.2eb48a28@posting.google.com>
"I am not loyal to any party, you assclown." Sneechres, in:
<1414fd53.0306092230.6feb961a@posting.google.com>
"Terrorism was a problem that Bush unfortunately inherited
from the ineffectual assclown who preceded him." sneechres, in:
<1124047275.826268.208310@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
"That you think you and assclown Craig here somehow have a right to
post to FR,..." Sneechres, in:
<1116109071.408620.206140@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
"Assclown. I'm talking about your attempt to re-define the issue."
Sneechres, in:
<8lqa7o$7n4$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
"No, assclown, my eyes are green. Thanks for asking." Sneechres
Asaurus, in:
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "robpar" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Choicers Pressure Women To the Max |
14 Aug 2006 09:12:54 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 03:49:23 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
It sounds like they meant to say, 64% of women who have had abortions
felt pressured. It still sounds dubious and vague at best. However,
even if it were true, anti-choicers want to pressure 100% of women into
not having abortion through fatwahs and dictatorial government invasion
of our personal lives.
IOW, you'll Ignore inconvenient truths.
Felt pressured because they could not afford to raise
another child? Economics can place enormous pressure on a
family. And welfare is very little help, it will keep you
alive, but in a poor quality life style. Felt pressured
because she would have to choose between supporting a child
or finishing her education. Or felt pressured because her
preacher father would kill her for getting pregnant.
There are many kinds of pressure. I notice they did not
count those that unwillingly carried the pregnancy to term,
or the suicides for those denied an abortion. Or the ones
who died from a self induced botched abortion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lobby Dosser" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Choicers Pressure Women To the Max |
14 Aug 2006 07:40:04 PM |
|
|
robpar <robpar@netportusa.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 03:49:23 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
It sounds like they meant to say, 64% of women who have had
abortions felt pressured. It still sounds dubious and vague at
best. However, even if it were true, anti-choicers want to pressure
100% of women into not having abortion through fatwahs and
dictatorial government invasion of our personal lives.
IOW, you'll Ignore inconvenient truths.
Felt pressured because they could not afford to raise
another child? Economics can place enormous pressure on a
family. And welfare is very little help, it will keep you
alive, but in a poor quality life style. Felt pressured
because she would have to choose between supporting a child
or finishing her education. Or felt pressured because her
preacher father would kill her for getting pregnant.
There are many kinds of pressure. I notice they did not
count those that unwillingly carried the pregnancy to term,
or the suicides for those denied an abortion. Or the ones
who died from a self induced botched abortion.
Or, or, or ... Like I said, inconvenient truths ignored.
Note that welfare should not help people have children they cannot
afford.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Mayhar" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Choicers Pressure Women To the Max |
14 Aug 2006 08:19:43 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 01:40:04 +0000, Lobby Dosser wrote:
Note that welfare should not help people have children they cannot
afford.
And, of course, it doesn't. Even though you pretend otherwise.
--
Frank Mayhar frank@exit.com http://www.exit.com/
Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/
http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lobby Dosser" |
|
| Title: Re: Anti-Choicers Pressure Women To the Max |
15 Aug 2006 01:04:21 AM |
|
|
Frank Mayhar <frank@exit.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 01:40:04 +0000, Lobby Dosser wrote:
Note that welfare should not help people have children they cannot
afford.
And, of course, it doesn't. Even though you pretend otherwise.
One of us worked for the welfare department. One of us does not have to
pretend.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
