--sexkitten-- wrote:

Sergeant America wrote:

Pat Winstanley wrote:

In article <a96c31t87f6s4iesnujpq97h9iv3jtnf4q@4ax.com>,
sappywriter@poetic.com says...

Pro-Choicers think of women as incubators for the abortion industry
profit
machine...

Hmmm, I have never been approached by somebody demanding I get
pregnant and stay pregnant long to terminate it at their facility.

Nor me. In fact I have never heard of anyone being solicited in that
way.

Abortion counsellors frequently coerce women into having abortions.

Bull.

You just fell into my trap!

"Every woman has these same two questions: First, "Is it a baby?" "No"
the counselor assures her. "It is a product of conception (or a blood
clot, or a piece of tissue)" Even though these counselors see six week
babies daily, with arms, legs and eyes that are closed like newborn
puppies, they lie to the women. How many women would have an abortion,
if they told them the truth?" --Carol Everett, former owner of two
clinics and director of four
"A Walk Through an Abortion Clinic" by Carol Everett ALL About Issues
magazine Aug-Sept 1991, p 117
------------------------------------------------------------------
"If a woman we were counseling expressed doubts about having an
abortion, we would say whatever was necessary to persuade her to abort
immediately." --Judy W., former office manager of the second largest
abortion clinic in El Paso, Texas
------------------------------------------------------------------
"We tried to avoid the women seeing them [the fetuses] They always
wanted to know the sex, but we lied and said it was too early to tell.
It's better for the women to think of the fetus as an 'it.' --Abortion
clinic worker Norma Eidelman
quoted in Rachel Weeping p 34
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"The counselor at our clinic would cry with the girls at the drop of a
hat. She would find their weakness and work on it. The women were
never given any alternatives. They were told how much trouble it is to
have a baby."--former abortion worker Debra Harry, quoted in the film
"Meet the Abortion Providers" 1989
----------------------------------------------------------------
"It is when I am holding a plastic uterus in one hand, a suction tube
in the other, moving them together in imitation of the scrubbing to
come, that woman ask the most secret question. I am speaking in a
matter-of-fact voice about 'the tissue' and 'the contents' when the
woman suddenly catches my eye and says 'How bib is the baby now?' These
words suggest a quiet need for definition of the boundaries being
drawn. It isn't so odd, after all, that she feels relief when I
describe the growing buds bulbous shape, its miniature nature. Again, I
gauge, and sometimes lie a little, weaseling around its infantile
features until its clinging power slackens." --abortion worker Sallie
Tisdale "We Do Abortions Here"
Oct 1987 Harpers Magazine p 68
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Vital signs should be observed regularly, and a Doppler [for listening
to the fetal heartbeat] inaudible to the patient should be used at
intervals to determine the presence or absence of fetal heart tones..
This [informed consent] is a controversial area, but most professionals
in the field feel that it is not advisable for patients to view the
products of conception, to be told the sex of the fetus, or to be
informed of a multiple pregnancy" --Abortionist Warren Hern in
"Abortion Practice" J.B. Lippincott Company, 1984 pgs 145 and 304
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Somewriter <sappywriter@poetic.com> writes:

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 19:14:58 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:

"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110665555.761732.51390@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

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.

If you thnk of them that way, for what they are, you can love them better.
LOL! Pro-Choicers think of women as incubators for the abortion industry
profit machine...

Hmmm, I have never been approached by somebody demanding I get
pregnant and stay pregnant long [enough] to terminate it at their facility.

You haven't, either? You and Dale (and me, of course) have a lot in common.
Small world, or what? ;-)

"james g. keegan jr." wrote:

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.

"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a
socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their
husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and
become lesbians."
(Fundraising letter from Pat Robertson that was an in-kind contribution to the
Iowa Committee to Stop ERA, as reported in The Washington Post, Aug 23, 1993)

"I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you
have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the
household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is,
period."
(Federal News Service, Sept. 11, 1992, quoting a Robertson newsletter.)

"The breakdown in society is directly attributable to women working outside
the home. The Bible commands that women be home for the man and children while
the men work in a profession and get an education. We need to go back to the
traditional family values of the 1950s." -- Pat Robertson in a 1992 newsletter
quoted by a Federal News Service story on Sept. 11, 1992

In article <1110665555.761732.51390@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "james
g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:

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.

"Your opinion" is verbatim that of just about a billion other
unimaginative pro-choicers. Terribly original. ZZZzzzZZZzz.

It boils down to emotional use of language.

Answer this question: Breeding stock breed for the profit of their
owners. Exactly what interest do pro-lifers have in "forcing" women to
"breed"?

In article <1110665555.761732.51390@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "james
g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
Answer this question: Breeding stock breed for the profit of their
owners. Exactly what interest do pro-lifers have in "forcing" women to
"breed"?

In article <1110665555.761732.51390@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "james
g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:

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.

"Your opinion" is verbatim that of just about a billion other
unimaginative pro-choicers. Terribly original. ZZZzzzZZZzz.

It boils down to emotional use of language. Say "breeding stock" or
"chattel for the state" or "incubator of the state" and people get this
image of a woman in a small cell, hooked up to tubes, forcibly impregnated
and forced to give birth. These "breeding stock" are the women of every
culture in almost every era but ours. They only stopped being "breeding
stock" when white colonialist culture gave them surgical abortion. Don't
wax too rhapsodic about "women's dignity"; apparently women need their
sucky-sucky machines to avoid being "less than human"-- hardly a sanguine
prognosis for the lot of womankind.

Answer this question: Breeding stock breed for the profit of their
owners. Exactly what interest do pro-lifers have in "forcing" women to
"breed"?

On 12 Mar 2005 14:12:35 -0800, "james g. keegan jr."
<jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:

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.

You might want to consider that people who hold the two views might be
intelligent enough to hold the view without thinking of a woman as
breeding stock. Like, for example, most husbands that hold one of the
two views probably don't consider their wives to be breeding stock.
Brothers of pregnant sisters, fiances of pregnant women, sons of
pregnant mothers might also not think of women as nothing more than
breeding stock. Heck, even I don't think of women as breeding stock.
They are for the bearing of the offspring and the pleasure of the
warrior - see two things not one.

james g. keegan jr. wrote:

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.

Not really consistent with reality.

james g. keegan jr. wrote:

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.

Not really consistent with reality.