| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"james g. keegan jr." |
| Date: |
12 Mar 2005 04:12:35 PM |
| Object: |
women as breeding stock |
in my opinion ...
those who would deny women their right to terminate a pegnancy at any
time during the pregnancy and for any reason think of women as nothing
more than breeding stock.
and, of course, the same mindset which could deny women this right
could use the same misogynist reasoning to force women to abort
i believe it was during the late 80s or early 90s when i first
expressed this opinion on usenet. i have never heard anything to cause
me to change my views.
.
|
|
| User: "junegill" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
18 Mar 2005 11:55:15 AM |
|
|
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:94s_d.914$hg.73@news01.roc.ny...
junegill wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:L5vZd.548$RE4.311@news02.roc.ny...
DianaC wrote:
[snip]
If medical science were advanced enough to provide an artificial means
of
gestation, or had the ability to transplant a fetus from an unwilling
host
to a willing one, then the fetal death rate due to elective abortion
would
plummet.
That's true. However, at the moment we don't HAVE that capability. I
would
like to see it happen, though, I truly would!!!
I'd find it hard to believe there's anyone that wouldn't. Once such a
thing is possible, everyone gets exactly what they want.
I'd bet the medical advances I suggested ("iron womb" or transplant)
will come to pass long before abortion is ever outlawed, and they'd come
to pass even faster if the pro-life movement directed their
"anti-abortion" energy into a "pro-science" agenda.
Who would pay for this? (My suggestion would be pro-lifers!) If ever
such
an artificial womb were invented it would only be used by rich infertile
couples, because it would cost tens of thousands of dollars to 'rear'
one
foetus, so to imagine such a contraption being used for a million
unwanted
foetuses per year is a real flight of fancy ... and then what would you
do
with the resulting babies?
The iron womb was more of a whim. I don't believe it's practical, but I
still think it has a better chance of succeeding than does abortion of
being outlawed.
I agree, and even if abortion were outlawed, it wouldn't put an end to
abortions.
As for transplanting from an unwilling uterus to
a willing one, where on earth are you going to find a million surrogate
mothers per year (with the same problem as before of what to do with the
babies)?
According to the pro-life faction, there are thousands of couples out
there just waiting for the opportunity to have a child of their own.
Yes, in spite of the fact that throughout the 90s there were only
approximately 120,000 adoptions per year, they still seem to think that
adoptive parents could be found for a million or so babies per year.
The pro-life crowd likes to claim it's worth it to save even one "baby",
so they should have no problem funding it.
As for me, I'm not really concerned with it. They would be unable to
find a surrogate for most of them.
Surrogacy is so rare it makes headline news.
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
18 Mar 2005 12:17:16 PM |
|
|
junegill wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:94s_d.914$hg.73@news01.roc.ny...
junegill wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:L5vZd.548$RE4.311@news02.roc.ny...
DianaC wrote:
[snip]
If medical science were advanced enough to provide an artificial means
of
gestation, or had the ability to transplant a fetus from an unwilling
host
to a willing one, then the fetal death rate due to elective abortion
would
plummet.
That's true. However, at the moment we don't HAVE that capability. I
would
like to see it happen, though, I truly would!!!
I'd find it hard to believe there's anyone that wouldn't. Once such a
thing is possible, everyone gets exactly what they want.
I'd bet the medical advances I suggested ("iron womb" or transplant)
will come to pass long before abortion is ever outlawed, and they'd come
to pass even faster if the pro-life movement directed their
"anti-abortion" energy into a "pro-science" agenda.
Who would pay for this? (My suggestion would be pro-lifers!) If ever
such
an artificial womb were invented it would only be used by rich infertile
couples, because it would cost tens of thousands of dollars to 'rear'
one
foetus, so to imagine such a contraption being used for a million
unwanted
foetuses per year is a real flight of fancy ... and then what would you
do
with the resulting babies?
The iron womb was more of a whim. I don't believe it's practical, but I
still think it has a better chance of succeeding than does abortion of
being outlawed.
I agree, and even if abortion were outlawed, it wouldn't put an end to
abortions.
Definitely not, though I'm sure the pro-lifers would be quick to quote
the numbers (which wouldn't include the back-alley).
As for transplanting from an unwilling uterus to
a willing one, where on earth are you going to find a million surrogate
mothers per year (with the same problem as before of what to do with the
babies)?
According to the pro-life faction, there are thousands of couples out
there just waiting for the opportunity to have a child of their own.
Yes, in spite of the fact that throughout the 90s there were only
approximately 120,000 adoptions per year, they still seem to think that
adoptive parents could be found for a million or so babies per year.
The pro-life crowd likes to claim it's worth it to save even one "baby",
so they should have no problem funding it.
As for me, I'm not really concerned with it. They would be unable to
find a surrogate for most of them.
Surrogacy is so rare it makes headline news.
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 12:56:36 AM |
|
|
In article <L5vZd.548$RE4.311@news02.roc.ny>,
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
DianaC wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:XHoZd.549$hg.287@news01.roc.ny...
DianaC wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:PVkZd.512$hg.353@news01.roc.ny...
DianaC wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:0CZYd.366$623.59@news02.roc.ny...
DianaC wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d10gju$r8k$1@bolt.sonic.net...
DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<snip to>
Excuse me, you ABSOLUTE TWIT. Where do you see me advocating a law, or
'obedience'? Does the phrase 'false dichotomy' mean anything to you?
You know, there are positions other than 'make it all illegal' and
'abortions should be the right of any woman right up until the kid is
out of the womb". Lots of 'em. Just because someone disagrees with you
on whether that's a real human life in there doesn't mean that I'm for
instituting flogging and putting "A"'s on Hester Prynne.
But you have no problem with forced injections "just for kicks".
It would certainly solve the problem, woudn't it? Nobody would get
pregnant until and unless she actually wanted to do so. Frankly, I don't
see the downside.
and that,
whether it's fair or not, is simply the way it is, just like it's
the 'way
it is' that a man's genetic equipment is a wee bit more vulnerable
to blows
than hers. Life sometimes really sucks wind, y'know?
Just like it's your choice to let children starve because you'd
rather
not be inconvenienced.
And you'd rather kill 'em before they starve? Oh, yes, that's logical.
Isn't it better, FAR better, not to start 'em in the first place?
It's also better not to have a car accident, but it sometimes happens
no matter what precautions you take.
The solution to that is. don't drive a car.
That's not a viable alternative for many people.
Then you accept the consequences, ALL of them, for doing so. Consider,
for instance, the laws in most states requiring liability insurance; you
don't have it, and you drive and get a ticket or an accident, you are in
huge trouble; very large fines. Your license suspended for a year or
more. It's not pretty.
Nope. You also have to pay to have your fixed or replaced and to put your
body back into it's previous condition if you so wish.
Thus it is with aborting a pregnancy. If you have the "accident", you can
put your body back to it's previous condition.
Yet you don't see anybody getting ***** because of this, do you?
lol! Funny you should mention that. Those that know me would tell you that
I've always been against the government requiring it's citizens to utilize
a service the government does not provide. I don't approve of laws that
require citizens to spend money on a private industry.
If the state requires liability insurance, they should offer liability
insurance.
Most states do. It's incredibly expensive, however...
If you DO, you are accepting the consequences, ALL of them.
Absolutely. If you have an accident and break something, you will seek a
physician to "restore" you to pre-accident condition.
When you drive a car and get in an accident, you are expected to deal
with it responsibly;
Right.
hit and run drivers are not well respected, especially if there is a
life at stake.
We aren't talking about hit and run drivers.
Yes. We are. We are talking about people who, having had consensual sex
and having had 'an accident' decide that the way to solve the problem is
to end an innocent life. That's hit and run to me.
That's restoring her body to it's condition prior to the "accident".
I believe one problem is that many people who are against abortion see
death of the fetus as the goal of an abortion, when it is not. The goal of
an abortion is to terminate a pregnancy, nothing more.
Same difference. Killing the fetus is the only way you can terminiate the
pregnancy.
If medical science were advanced enough to provide an artificial means of
gestation, or had the ability to transplant a fetus from an unwilling host
to a willing one, then the fetal death rate due to elective abortion would
plummet.
That's true. However, at the moment we don't HAVE that capability. I would
like to see it happen, though, I truly would!!!
I'd find it hard to believe there's anyone that wouldn't. Once such a
thing is possible, everyone gets exactly what they want.
I'd bet the medical advances I suggested ("iron womb" or transplant)
will come to pass long before abortion is ever outlawed, and they'd come
to pass even faster if the pro-life movement directed their
"anti-abortion" energy into a "pro-science" agenda.
My evil side would like to see any woman who opposes abortion be
required to undergo an embryonic transfer for the women they oppose the
abortion for. If the "life" is so important then, let the she who
opposes the abortion carry the fetus.
Some of the anti-rejection drugs on the market just might allow that to
happen.
Diana, will you volunteer? The embryos are gonna be killed anyway. Why
not make the effort and see if we can save a few and implant them in
you. We can give you cyclosporin or something to counter any possible
rejection issues. The chemicals for artificial insemination are likely
to help your uterus to be receptive to an embryo that been placed their.
Why not? The embryo is gonna end up in a biohazard container anyway. Why
not try and save it?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 07:45:04 PM |
|
|
In article <bQqZd.2513$Z07.1761@trnddc02>,
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:XHoZd.549$hg.287@news01.roc.ny...
DianaC wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:PVkZd.512$hg.353@news01.roc.ny...
DianaC wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:0CZYd.366$623.59@news02.roc.ny...
DianaC wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d10gju$r8k$1@bolt.sonic.net...
DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<snip to>
Excuse me, you ABSOLUTE TWIT. Where do you see me advocating a law, or
'obedience'? Does the phrase 'false dichotomy' mean anything to you?
You know, there are positions other than 'make it all illegal' and
'abortions should be the right of any woman right up until the kid is
out of the womb". Lots of 'em. Just because someone disagrees with you
on whether that's a real human life in there doesn't mean that I'm for
instituting flogging and putting "A"'s on Hester Prynne.
But you have no problem with forced injections "just for kicks".
It would certainly solve the problem, woudn't it? Nobody would get
pregnant until and unless she actually wanted to do so. Frankly, I don't
see the downside.
and that,
whether it's fair or not, is simply the way it is, just like it's
the 'way
it is' that a man's genetic equipment is a wee bit more vulnerable
to blows
than hers. Life sometimes really sucks wind, y'know?
Just like it's your choice to let children starve because you'd
rather
not be inconvenienced.
And you'd rather kill 'em before they starve? Oh, yes, that's logical.
Isn't it better, FAR better, not to start 'em in the first place?
It's also better not to have a car accident, but it sometimes happens
no matter what precautions you take.
The solution to that is. don't drive a car.
That's not a viable alternative for many people.
Then you accept the consequences, ALL of them, for doing so. Consider,
for instance, the laws in most states requiring liability insurance; you
don't have it, and you drive and get a ticket or an accident, you are in
huge trouble; very large fines. Your license suspended for a year or
more. It's not pretty.
Nope. You also have to pay to have your fixed or replaced and to put your
body back into it's previous condition if you so wish.
Thus it is with aborting a pregnancy. If you have the "accident", you can
put your body back to it's previous condition.
Yet you don't see anybody getting ***** because of this, do you?
lol! Funny you should mention that. Those that know me would tell you that
I've always been against the government requiring it's citizens to utilize
a service the government does not provide. I don't approve of laws that
require citizens to spend money on a private industry.
If the state requires liability insurance, they should offer liability
insurance.
Most states do. It's incredibly expensive, however...
If you DO, you are accepting the consequences, ALL of them.
Absolutely. If you have an accident and break something, you will seek a
physician to "restore" you to pre-accident condition.
When you drive a car and get in an accident, you are expected to deal
with it responsibly;
Right.
hit and run drivers are not well respected, especially if there is a
life at stake.
We aren't talking about hit and run drivers.
Yes. We are. We are talking about people who, having had consensual sex
and having had 'an accident' decide that the way to solve the problem is
to end an innocent life. That's hit and run to me.
That's restoring her body to it's condition prior to the "accident".
I believe one problem is that many people who are against abortion see
death of the fetus as the goal of an abortion, when it is not. The goal of
an abortion is to terminate a pregnancy, nothing more.
Same difference. Killing the fetus is the only way you can terminiate the
pregnancy.
If medical science were advanced enough to provide an artificial means of
gestation, or had the ability to transplant a fetus from an unwilling host
to a willing one, then the fetal death rate due to elective abortion would
plummet.
That's true. However, at the moment we don't HAVE that capability. I would
like to see it happen, though, I truly would!!!
Or some women could control their sexual desires a few times each year.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Duca" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 08:07:33 PM |
|
|
in article bQqZd.2513$Z07.1761@trnddc02, DianaC at
dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net wrote on 3/14/05 8:25 PM:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:XHoZd.549$hg.287@news01.roc.ny...
DianaC wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:PVkZd.512$hg.353@news01.roc.ny...
DianaC wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:0CZYd.366$623.59@news02.roc.ny...
DianaC wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d10gju$r8k$1@bolt.sonic.net...
DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<snip to>
Excuse me, you ABSOLUTE TWIT. Where do you see me advocating a law, or
'obedience'? Does the phrase 'false dichotomy' mean anything to you?
You know, there are positions other than 'make it all illegal' and
'abortions should be the right of any woman right up until the kid is
out of the womb". Lots of 'em. Just because someone disagrees with you
on whether that's a real human life in there doesn't mean that I'm for
instituting flogging and putting "A"'s on Hester Prynne.
But you have no problem with forced injections "just for kicks".
It would certainly solve the problem, woudn't it? Nobody would get
pregnant until and unless she actually wanted to do so. Frankly, I don't
see the downside.
and that,
whether it's fair or not, is simply the way it is, just like it's
the 'way
it is' that a man's genetic equipment is a wee bit more vulnerable
to blows
than hers. Life sometimes really sucks wind, y'know?
Just like it's your choice to let children starve because you'd
rather
not be inconvenienced.
And you'd rather kill 'em before they starve? Oh, yes, that's logical.
Isn't it better, FAR better, not to start 'em in the first place?
It's also better not to have a car accident, but it sometimes happens
no matter what precautions you take.
The solution to that is. don't drive a car.
That's not a viable alternative for many people.
Then you accept the consequences, ALL of them, for doing so. Consider,
for instance, the laws in most states requiring liability insurance; you
don't have it, and you drive and get a ticket or an accident, you are in
huge trouble; very large fines. Your license suspended for a year or
more. It's not pretty.
Nope. You also have to pay to have your fixed or replaced and to put your
body back into it's previous condition if you so wish.
Thus it is with aborting a pregnancy. If you have the "accident", you can
put your body back to it's previous condition.
Yet you don't see anybody getting ***** because of this, do you?
lol! Funny you should mention that. Those that know me would tell you that
I've always been against the government requiring it's citizens to utilize
a service the government does not provide. I don't approve of laws that
require citizens to spend money on a private industry.
If the state requires liability insurance, they should offer liability
insurance.
Most states do. It's incredibly expensive, however...
If you DO, you are accepting the consequences, ALL of them.
Absolutely. If you have an accident and break something, you will seek a
physician to "restore" you to pre-accident condition.
When you drive a car and get in an accident, you are expected to deal
with it responsibly;
Right.
hit and run drivers are not well respected, especially if there is a
life at stake.
We aren't talking about hit and run drivers.
Yes. We are. We are talking about people who, having had consensual sex
and having had 'an accident' decide that the way to solve the problem is
to end an innocent life. That's hit and run to me.
That's restoring her body to it's condition prior to the "accident".
I believe one problem is that many people who are against abortion see
death of the fetus as the goal of an abortion, when it is not. The goal of
an abortion is to terminate a pregnancy, nothing more.
Same difference. Killing the fetus is the only way you can terminiate the
pregnancy.
If medical science were advanced enough to provide an artificial means of
gestation, or had the ability to transplant a fetus from an unwilling host
to a willing one, then the fetal death rate due to elective abortion would
plummet.
That's true. However, at the moment we don't HAVE that capability. I would
like to see it happen, though, I truly would!!!
` Isn't that the type of thing that PISSES OFF your precious God?
Paul
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 03:30:17 PM |
|
|
In article <rcnZd.4272$GI6.1122@trnddc05>,
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:PVkZd.512$hg.353@news01.roc.ny...
DianaC wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:0CZYd.366$623.59@news02.roc.ny...
DianaC wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d10gju$r8k$1@bolt.sonic.net...
DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<snip to>
Excuse me, you ABSOLUTE TWIT. Where do you see me advocating a law, or
'obedience'? Does the phrase 'false dichotomy' mean anything to you?
You know, there are positions other than 'make it all illegal' and
'abortions should be the right of any woman right up until the kid is
out of the womb". Lots of 'em. Just because someone disagrees with you
on whether that's a real human life in there doesn't mean that I'm for
instituting flogging and putting "A"'s on Hester Prynne.
But you have no problem with forced injections "just for kicks".
It would certainly solve the problem, woudn't it? Nobody would get
pregnant until and unless she actually wanted to do so. Frankly, I don't
see the downside.
and that,
whether it's fair or not, is simply the way it is, just like it's the
'way
it is' that a man's genetic equipment is a wee bit more vulnerable to
blows
than hers. Life sometimes really sucks wind, y'know?
Just like it's your choice to let children starve because you'd rather
not be inconvenienced.
And you'd rather kill 'em before they starve? Oh, yes, that's logical.
Isn't it better, FAR better, not to start 'em in the first place?
It's also better not to have a car accident, but it sometimes happens no
matter what precautions you take.
The solution to that is. don't drive a car.
That's not a viable alternative for many people.
Then you accept the consequences, ALL of them, for doing so. Consider, for
instance, the laws in most states requiring liability insurance; you don't
have it, and you drive and get a ticket or an accident, you are in huge
trouble; very large fines. Your license suspended for a year or more. It's
not pretty. Yet you don't see anybody getting ***** because of this, do
you?
If you DO, you are accepting the consequences, ALL of them.
Absolutely. If you have an accident and break something, you will seek a
physician to "restore" you to pre-accident condition.
When you drive a car and get in an accident, you are expected to deal
with it responsibly;
Right.
hit and run drivers are not well respected, especially if there is a life
at stake.
We aren't talking about hit and run drivers.
Yes. We are. We are talking about people who, having had consensual sex and
having had 'an accident' decide that the way to solve the problem is to end
an innocent life. That's hit and run to me.
That sounds like a solution to me. It just appears to be a solution that
you don't like. Abortion is a very quick and easy way to stop an
unwanted pregnancy. Heck, I wish half of life's problems were as easily
solved.
We're talking about one person in one car having a single car accident
which results in an undesired change in their physical condition.
Actually, we are talking about two people in a car who run over a kid in a
crosswalk and drive off.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 04:33:48 PM |
|
|
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote in message
news:homo-00843B.16301614032005@news.isp.giganews.com...
In article <rcnZd.4272$GI6.1122@trnddc05>,
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<snip to>
Yes. We are. We are talking about people who, having had consensual sex
and
having had 'an accident' decide that the way to solve the problem is to
end
an innocent life. That's hit and run to me.
That sounds like a solution to me. It just appears to be a solution that
you don't like. Abortion is a very quick and easy way to stop an
unwanted pregnancy. Heck, I wish half of life's problems were as easily
solved.
Hitler had a similar idea about his own final solution.
Some solutions, simple or not, are simply the wrong ones.
We're talking about one person in one car having a single car accident
which results in an undesired change in their physical condition.
Actually, we are talking about two people in a car who run over a kid in
a
crosswalk and drive off.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 05:42:12 PM |
|
|
In article <gjoZd.5431$mq2.261@trnddc08>,
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote in message
news:homo-00843B.16301614032005@news.isp.giganews.com...
In article <rcnZd.4272$GI6.1122@trnddc05>,
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<snip to>
Yes. We are. We are talking about people who, having had consensual sex
and
having had 'an accident' decide that the way to solve the problem is to
end
an innocent life. That's hit and run to me.
That sounds like a solution to me. It just appears to be a solution that
you don't like. Abortion is a very quick and easy way to stop an
unwanted pregnancy. Heck, I wish half of life's problems were as easily
solved.
Hitler had a similar idea about his own final solution.
Some solutions, simple or not, are simply the wrong ones.
I think abortion is a good choice in most situations. I consider it a
right of any woman to choose an abortion if that is what she wants. It
is unfortunate and I do appreciate that you disagree with me on this
point.
That you would try to equate me with Hitler is funny. Actually, it was
hitler that was practicing mass genocide. As I provided evidence, that
is what you are doing with the promotion of birth control when there are
other options available. Hitler's solution was just faster than yours
with birth control.
Convincing women to use birth control is to harm them. We know that
birth control has many health risks. We know that other forms of sex can
accomplish the same intimacy and bonding results.
Birth control actually seems quite lazy to me. There are only a few days
each month when pregnancy is possible for most women. Yet, to simply
avoid vaginal sex on those days is just too much to ask any sane adult
human.
Why avoid sex for a day or two, or avoid a particular type of sex for
that time period when you can harm your body and convince others ot harm
their bodies with an onslaught of chemicals.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Somewriter" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 06:08:58 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 21:18:15 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:PVkZd.512$hg.353@news01.roc.ny...
DianaC wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:0CZYd.366$623.59@news02.roc.ny...
DianaC wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d10gju$r8k$1@bolt.sonic.net...
DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<snip to>
Excuse me, you ABSOLUTE TWIT. Where do you see me advocating a law, or
'obedience'? Does the phrase 'false dichotomy' mean anything to you?
You know, there are positions other than 'make it all illegal' and
'abortions should be the right of any woman right up until the kid is
out of the womb". Lots of 'em. Just because someone disagrees with you
on whether that's a real human life in there doesn't mean that I'm for
instituting flogging and putting "A"'s on Hester Prynne.
But you have no problem with forced injections "just for kicks".
It would certainly solve the problem, woudn't it? Nobody would get
pregnant until and unless she actually wanted to do so. Frankly, I don't
see the downside.
and that,
whether it's fair or not, is simply the way it is, just like it's the
'way
it is' that a man's genetic equipment is a wee bit more vulnerable to
blows
than hers. Life sometimes really sucks wind, y'know?
Just like it's your choice to let children starve because you'd rather
not be inconvenienced.
And you'd rather kill 'em before they starve? Oh, yes, that's logical.
Isn't it better, FAR better, not to start 'em in the first place?
It's also better not to have a car accident, but it sometimes happens no
matter what precautions you take.
The solution to that is. don't drive a car.
That's not a viable alternative for many people.
Then you accept the consequences, ALL of them, for doing so. Consider, for
instance, the laws in most states requiring liability insurance; you don't
have it, and you drive and get a ticket or an accident, you are in huge
trouble; very large fines. Your license suspended for a year or more. It's
not pretty. Yet you don't see anybody getting ***** because of this, do
you?
If you DO, you are accepting the consequences, ALL of them.
Absolutely. If you have an accident and break something, you will seek a
physician to "restore" you to pre-accident condition.
When you drive a car and get in an accident, you are expected to deal
with it responsibly;
Right.
hit and run drivers are not well respected, especially if there is a life
at stake.
We aren't talking about hit and run drivers.
Yes. We are. We are talking about people who, having had consensual sex and
having had 'an accident' decide that the way to solve the problem is to end
an innocent life. That's hit and run to me.
You did each time you had sex with your then living spouse. And you
continue to do so, now -- even being post menopausal and unable to
borne any more children.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 07:26:15 PM |
|
|
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:lh9c319bheo8u73kgc3nh5vhr77vtvqa91@4ax.com...
<snip to>
Yes. We are. We are talking about people who, having had consensual sex
and
having had 'an accident' decide that the way to solve the problem is to
end
an innocent life. That's hit and run to me.
You did each time you had sex with your then living spouse. And you
continue to do so, now -- even being post menopausal and unable to
borne any more children.
did what? WHAT are you talking about???
.
|
|
|
| User: "Somewriter" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 07:58:01 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 01:26:15 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:lh9c319bheo8u73kgc3nh5vhr77vtvqa91@4ax.com...
<snip to>
Yes. We are. We are talking about people who, having had consensual sex
and
having had 'an accident' decide that the way to solve the problem is to
end
an innocent life. That's hit and run to me.
You did each time you had sex with your then living spouse. And you
continue to do so, now -- even being post menopausal and unable to
borne any more children.
did what?
End innocent life.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 12:24:28 AM |
|
|
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:j8gc319nben8oll030q6p2s73t7inpkva6@4ax.com...
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 01:26:15 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:lh9c319bheo8u73kgc3nh5vhr77vtvqa91@4ax.com...
<snip to>
Yes. We are. We are talking about people who, having had consensual sex
and
having had 'an accident' decide that the way to solve the problem is to
end
an innocent life. That's hit and run to me.
You did each time you had sex with your then living spouse. And you
continue to do so, now -- even being post menopausal and unable to
borne any more children.
did what?
End innocent life.
huh??
.
|
|
|
| User: "Somewriter" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 03:56:12 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 06:24:28 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:j8gc319nben8oll030q6p2s73t7inpkva6@4ax.com...
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 01:26:15 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:lh9c319bheo8u73kgc3nh5vhr77vtvqa91@4ax.com...
<snip to>
Yes. We are. We are talking about people who, having had consensual sex
and
having had 'an accident' decide that the way to solve the problem is to
end
an innocent life. That's hit and run to me.
You did each time you had sex with your then living spouse. And you
continue to do so, now -- even being post menopausal and unable to
borne any more children.
did what?
End innocent life.
huh??
Huh??
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 04:08:34 PM |
|
|
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:k9cd31l1lfllti02relsks6pu64nssca79@4ax.com...
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 06:24:28 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:j8gc319nben8oll030q6p2s73t7inpkva6@4ax.com...
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 01:26:15 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:lh9c319bheo8u73kgc3nh5vhr77vtvqa91@4ax.com...
<snip to>
Yes. We are. We are talking about people who, having had consensual
sex
and
having had 'an accident' decide that the way to solve the problem is
to
end
an innocent life. That's hit and run to me.
You did each time you had sex with your then living spouse. And you
continue to do so, now -- even being post menopausal and unable to
borne any more children.
did what?
End innocent life.
huh??
Huh??
That was a (albeit inelegantly expressed) request for clarification.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Somewriter" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 06:48:13 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:08:34 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:k9cd31l1lfllti02relsks6pu64nssca79@4ax.com...
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 06:24:28 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:j8gc319nben8oll030q6p2s73t7inpkva6@4ax.com...
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 01:26:15 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:lh9c319bheo8u73kgc3nh5vhr77vtvqa91@4ax.com...
<snip to>
Yes. We are. We are talking about people who, having had consensual
sex
and
having had 'an accident' decide that the way to solve the problem is
to
end
an innocent life. That's hit and run to me.
You did each time you had sex with your then living spouse. And you
continue to do so, now -- even being post menopausal and unable to
borne any more children.
did what?
End innocent life.
huh??
Huh??
That was a...
I do not blame you for unwillingly taking responsibility for your the
contents of your posts. I'd be embarrassed too.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 02:16:57 PM |
|
|
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:cmag31po1o07oaqqko2j3v2qrtc0v8v8ch@4ax.com...
<snip to>
an innocent life. That's hit and run to me.
You did each time you had sex with your then living spouse. And you
continue to do so, now -- even being post menopausal and unable to
borne any more children.
did what?
End innocent life.
huh??
Huh??
That was a...
I do not blame you for unwillingly taking responsibility for your the
contents of your posts. I'd be embarrassed too.
I have no idea why I'm trying this, but let me give it one last go:
What did you mean when you said that I ended innocent life everytime I "had
sex with [my] spouse, and do so, now, even being post menopausal and unable
to borne any children" (sic...)
In other words, I did not understand what you were writing, I still do not,
and I am requesting clarification.
Not that you have brains enough, or the intellectual honesty, to give me
any, but hey, it's worth a shot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Somewriter" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 02:41:51 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:16:57 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:cmag31po1o07oaqqko2j3v2qrtc0v8v8ch@4ax.com...
<snip to>
an innocent life. That's hit and run to me.
You did each time you had sex with your then living spouse. And you
continue to do so, now -- even being post menopausal and unable to
borne any more children.
did what?
End innocent life.
huh??
Huh??
That was a...
I do not blame you for unwillingly taking responsibility for your the
contents of your posts. I'd be embarrassed too.
I have no idea why I'm trying this...
I have know why idea you dug yourself into a whole, either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 03:00:26 PM |
|
|
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:ef6h31hr0q8fo5u686fn49e2og77nqb23c@4ax.com...
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:16:57 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:cmag31po1o07oaqqko2j3v2qrtc0v8v8ch@4ax.com...
<snip to>
an innocent life. That's hit and run to me.
You did each time you had sex with your then living spouse. And
you
continue to do so, now -- even being post menopausal and unable to
borne any more children.
did what?
End innocent life.
huh??
Huh??
That was a...
I do not blame you for unwillingly taking responsibility for your the
contents of your posts. I'd be embarrassed too.
I have no idea why I'm trying this...
I have know why idea you dug yourself into a whole, either.
Better than the way you dug yourself into a hole. Now me, I am aware that I
have 'dug [myself] into a whole; my argument is complete and consistant with
itself, makes sense and is reasonable. You, however, should remember the
first law of holes.
.......when you are in over your head, stop digging.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Somewriter" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 09:19:07 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:00:26 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:ef6h31hr0q8fo5u686fn49e2og77nqb23c@4ax.com...
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:16:57 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:cmag31po1o07oaqqko2j3v2qrtc0v8v8ch@4ax.com...
<snip to>
an innocent life. That's hit and run to me.
You did each time you had sex with your then living spouse. And
you
continue to do so, now -- even being post menopausal and unable to
borne any more children.
did what?
End innocent life.
huh??
Huh??
That was a...
I do not blame you for unwillingly taking responsibility for your the
contents of your posts. I'd be embarrassed too.
I have no idea why I'm trying this...
I have know why idea you dug yourself into a whole, either.
Better than the way you dug yourself into a hole.
I did not tell two very different stories in the same thread, as you
have. You only have yourself to blame for that, Diana.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 11:01:41 PM |
|
|
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:knth31dsk307h8vu7neh1lj16hvtk56jo9@4ax.com...
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:00:26 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<snip to">>
Better than the way you dug yourself into a hole.
I did not tell two very different stories in the same thread, as you
have. You only have yourself to blame for that, Diana.
WHAT two different stories? (honestly bewildered)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Somewriter" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 05:22:40 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 05:01:41 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
WHAT two different stories?
....Two different Version of the SAME STORY.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 12:31:44 PM |
|
|
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:f2qi31h76iv22frn9aqeje9pkj0qh3f41t@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 05:01:41 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
WHAT two different stories?
...Two different Version of the SAME STORY.
Care to elucidate? (still confused) WHAT are you talking about?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Somewriter" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 12:43:30 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:31:44 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:f2qi31h76iv22frn9aqeje9pkj0qh3f41t@4ax.com...
...Two different Version of the SAME STORY.
Care to elucidate?
You ought to know, "DianaC." You created the fabrications. (Of course
you have created so many, it's doubtless you haven't kept track.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 03:00:29 PM |
|
|
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:lsjj31pact9n5pbkef4e5dmo9tlsrvp82k@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:31:44 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:f2qi31h76iv22frn9aqeje9pkj0qh3f41t@4ax.com...
...Two different Version of the SAME STORY.
Care to elucidate?
You ought to know, "DianaC." You created the fabrications. (Of course
you have created so many, it's doubtless you haven't kept track.)
idiot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Somewriter" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
17 Mar 2005 03:48:00 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 21:00:29 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:lsjj31pact9n5pbkef4e5dmo9tlsrvp82k@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:31:44 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Somewriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:f2qi31h76iv22frn9aqeje9pkj0qh3f41t@4ax.com...
...Two different Version of the SAME STORY.
Care to elucidate?
You ought to know, "DianaC." You created the fabrications. (Of course
you have created so many, it's doubtless you haven't kept track.)
idiot.
You are!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 02:24:09 PM |
|
|
In article <y3jZd.4154$GI6.943@trnddc05>,
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:0CZYd.366$623.59@news02.roc.ny...
DianaC wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d10gju$r8k$1@bolt.sonic.net...
DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<snip to>
Excuse me, you ABSOLUTE TWIT. Where do you see me advocating a law, or
'obedience'? Does the phrase 'false dichotomy' mean anything to you?
You know, there are positions other than 'make it all illegal' and
'abortions should be the right of any woman right up until the kid is out
of the womb". Lots of 'em. Just because someone disagrees with you on
whether that's a real human life in there doesn't mean that I'm for
instituting flogging and putting "A"'s on Hester Prynne.
But you have no problem with forced injections "just for kicks".
It would certainly solve the problem, woudn't it? Nobody would get pregnant
until and unless she actually wanted to do so. Frankly, I don't see the
downside.
Being a casually observer to the news in the US, it does seem that there
is a definite down side to the choice not to have children. The current
social security net is being portrayed as being on its last legs. This
is a result of not having new members (new offspring from each
generation) contributing to the social system.
Oddly, more and more women are single or widowed with no one to care for
them as they age except for the government. Unfotunately, as the notion
of birth, choice and birth control filters through the population then,
no one is there to provide monies to the government to pay those women
who opted out of giving birth.
As a point of contention, why should my taxes be used to support a woman
in her old age when she made the choice not to have children and not to
create a family that would provide for her in sickness and old age.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 03:33:50 PM |
|
|
Ron wrote:
In article <y3jZd.4154$GI6.943@trnddc05>,
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:0CZYd.366$623.59@news02.roc.ny...
DianaC wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d10gju$r8k$1@bolt.sonic.net...
DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<snip to>
Excuse me, you ABSOLUTE TWIT. Where do you see me advocating a law, or
'obedience'? Does the phrase 'false dichotomy' mean anything to you?
You know, there are positions other than 'make it all illegal' and
'abortions should be the right of any woman right up until the kid is out
of the womb". Lots of 'em. Just because someone disagrees with you on
whether that's a real human life in there doesn't mean that I'm for
instituting flogging and putting "A"'s on Hester Prynne.
But you have no problem with forced injections "just for kicks".
It would certainly solve the problem, woudn't it? Nobody would get pregnant
until and unless she actually wanted to do so. Frankly, I don't see the
downside.
Being a casually observer to the news in the US, it does seem that there
is a definite down side to the choice not to have children.
I chose not to have children. Turned out I already had one.
The current social security net is being portrayed as being on its last legs.
It's fine. It needs but a slight modification.
This is a result of not having new members (new offspring from each
generation) contributing to the social system.
Are you saying that every couple should produce more than two children?
Oddly, more and more women are single or widowed with no one to care for
them as they age except for the government.
And themselves.
Unfotunately, as the notion
of birth, choice and birth control filters through the population then,
no one is there to provide monies to the government to pay those women
who opted out of giving birth.
You believe women should be obligated to have children?
As a point of contention, why should my taxes be used to support a woman
in her old age when she made the choice not to have children and not to
create a family that would provide for her in sickness and old age.
The same answer that can be given for every question that begins with
"why should my taxes be used..."
Because that's how it works in America. Your taxes are used for the
greater good of the country as a whole, not to fulfill your personal agenda.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 05:04:26 PM |
|
|
In article <2rnZd.530$hg.417@news01.roc.ny>,
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
Ron wrote:
In article <y3jZd.4154$GI6.943@trnddc05>,
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:0CZYd.366$623.59@news02.roc.ny...
DianaC wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d10gju$r8k$1@bolt.sonic.net...
DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<snip to>
Excuse me, you ABSOLUTE TWIT. Where do you see me advocating a law, or
'obedience'? Does the phrase 'false dichotomy' mean anything to you?
You know, there are positions other than 'make it all illegal' and
'abortions should be the right of any woman right up until the kid is out
of the womb". Lots of 'em. Just because someone disagrees with you on
whether that's a real human life in there doesn't mean that I'm for
instituting flogging and putting "A"'s on Hester Prynne.
But you have no problem with forced injections "just for kicks".
It would certainly solve the problem, woudn't it? Nobody would get pregnant
until and unless she actually wanted to do so. Frankly, I don't see the
downside.
Being a casually observer to the news in the US, it does seem that there
is a definite down side to the choice not to have children.
I chose not to have children. Turned out I already had one.
I thought I was having a discussion about an issue -- not you.
The current social security net is being portrayed as being on its last
legs.
It's fine. It needs but a slight modification.
At 14 live births per 1000 versus the more than 100 live births per 1000
of a few decades ago, the problem is a little more substantial that what
you are willing to acknowledge.
This is a result of not having new members (new offspring from each
generation) contributing to the social system.
Are you saying that every couple should produce more than two children?
No. I am recognizing that there is another side to my being supportive
of choice.
Oddly, more and more women are single or widowed with no one to care for
them as they age except for the government.
And themselves.
Some basic math would show that this is not the case. A woman annual
income of social program is equal roughly to her annual earnings
providing that she was a full time worker during those years. A woman
who worked 40 years full time, has about 40 months of benefits, after
that it is the society is who paying for her care. Add in other benefits
and it is the rest of society that keeps her well.
Unfotunately, as the notion
of birth, choice and birth control filters through the population then,
no one is there to provide monies to the government to pay those women
who opted out of giving birth.
You believe women should be obligated to have children?
It is really interesting that you jump to those conclusions. I would
prefer unhealthy women refrain from having children. I think it is
unwise and unhealthy for them. I'm won't make it a requirement of them
though. I would prefer that younger and healthier people have children
to ensure our species survives, but again, I believe this is better when
it comes as a result of a choice rather than forcing anyone to do
anthing.
As a point of contention, why should my taxes be used to support a woman
in her old age when she made the choice not to have children and not to
create a family that would provide for her in sickness and old age.
The same answer that can be given for every question that begins with
"why should my taxes be used..."
Because that's how it works in America. Your taxes are used for the
greater good of the country as a whole, not to fulfill your personal agenda.
How is bankrupting future generations a "greater good"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 09:10:54 PM |
|
|
Ron wrote:
In article <2rnZd.530$hg.417@news01.roc.ny>,
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote:
Ron wrote:
In article <y3jZd.4154$GI6.943@trnddc05>,
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:0CZYd.366$623.59@news02.roc.ny...
DianaC wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d10gju$r8k$1@bolt.sonic.net...
DianaC <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<snip to>
Excuse me, you ABSOLUTE TWIT. Where do you see me advocating a law, or
'obedience'? Does the phrase 'false dichotomy' mean anything to you?
You know, there are positions other than 'make it all illegal' and
'abortions should be the right of any woman right up until the kid is out
of the womb". Lots of 'em. Just because someone disagrees with you on
whether that's a real human life in there doesn't mean that I'm for
instituting flogging and putting "A"'s on Hester Prynne.
But you have no problem with forced injections "just for kicks".
It would certainly solve the problem, woudn't it? Nobody would get pregnant
until and unless she actually wanted to do so. Frankly, I don't see the
downside.
Being a casually observer to the news in the US, it does seem that there
is a definite down side to the choice not to have children.
I chose not to have children. Turned out I already had one.
I thought I was having a discussion about an issue -- not you.
You stated that it appears to you that there's a down side to choosing
not to have children. My situation is a good example of how, as a man,
what you choose concerning parenthood doesn't mean a thing.
In America, men aren't the ones who choose to have children (as they
aren't the ones who give birth to them).
The current social security net is being portrayed as being on its last
legs.
It's fine. It needs but a slight modification.
At 14 live births per 1000 versus the more than 100 live births per 1000
of a few decades ago, the problem is a little more substantial that what
you are willing to acknowledge.
It's only a problem if they don't make the necessary adjustments, which
they will.
This is a result of not having new members (new offspring from each
generation) contributing to the social system.
Are you saying that every couple should produce more than two children?
No. I am recognizing that there is another side to my being supportive
of choice.
oh... ok. Good for you.
Oddly, more and more women are single or widowed with no one to care for
them as they age except for the government.
And themselves.
Some basic math would show that this is not the case. A woman annual
income of social program is equal roughly to her annual earnings
providing that she was a full time worker during those years. A woman
who worked 40 years full time, has about 40 months of benefits, after
that it is the society is who paying for her care. Add in other benefits
and it is the rest of society that keeps her well.
There are many more ways for a person to secure their golden years than
just social security. Many intelligent women (and some dumb ones too,
I'm sure) were smart enough to ensure they're self-sufficient after
retirement.
Unfotunately, as the notion
of birth, choice and birth control filters through the population then,
no one is there to provide monies to the government to pay those women
who opted out of giving birth.
You believe women should be obligated to have children?
It is really interesting that you jump to those conclusions.
It's not a conclusion, it's a question...
I would prefer unhealthy women refrain from having children. I think it is
unwise and unhealthy for them. I'm won't make it a requirement of them
though.
....and that was the answer.
I would prefer that younger and healthier people have children
to ensure our species survives, but again, I believe this is better when
it comes as a result of a choice rather than forcing anyone to do
anthing.
There's always cloning. :)
As a point of contention, why should my taxes be used to support a woman
in her old age when she made the choice not to have children and not to
create a family that would provide for her in sickness and old age.
The same answer that can be given for every question that begins with
"why should my taxes be used..."
Because that's how it works in America. Your taxes are used for the
greater good of the country as a whole, not to fulfill your personal agenda.
How is bankrupting future generations a "greater good"?
It may appear so now, but they aren't bankrupting future generations.
The country has been down these roads before, and as it does, it will
recover quite nicely.
The problem I see is that it seems like we always need to "recover" from
something after a Republican administration.
.
|
|
| | | | |
