| 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: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 06:06:45 PM |
|
|
In article <HCoZd.5435$mq2.2531@trnddc08>,
"DianaC" <> wrote:
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote in message
news:homo-A43771.15362114032005@news.isp.giganews.com...
In article <r8jZd.4157$GI6.3207@trnddc05>,
"DianaC" < > wrote:
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c9e80067ea8975998c2d3@news.uni-berlin.de...
In article <drOYd.1051$mq2.472@trnddc08>,
says...
Never thought that a woman can prevent a pregnancy in the first place
far
more easily than she can abort one, have you?
What makes you think a woman can prevent a pregnancy more easily than
she can have a pregnancy aborted? And how does that square with
situations where prevention failed (hence now a pregnancy)?
Abortion is a surgical procedure. It's invasive. It's painful. It's
expensive. Too many, it seems, WILL damage the ability to conceive and
bear
future children.
And? If a woman is going to use birth control to not have children,
being unable to conceive is a bonus.
Believe it or not, most women take birth control so that they can become
pregnant when THEY want to. If they didn't want babies at all, they would do
something permanent, like getting their tubes tied. Most women don't want to
do something that final.
You are leaving me with a very negative impression of women who use
birth control. Birth control is not a necessity. I think that a sane,
reasonable adult could abstain from vaginal sex for a day or two to
avoid a conception. I think it is possible for healthy and normal
individual to find other ways to have sex during a fertile period. I
think that women can control their sexual desires/urges.
Now you tell me which is easier; taking a pill every morning or doing
this?
An abortion is easier. Birth control can be nasty business with all
sorts of complications. Of course, if you want women to have all sorts
of issues with their health then recommending birth control would be an
answer.
You really are strange.
Personal attacks are generally considered bad form.
Birth control has a negative side. Birth control can be quite harmful to
women. You are promoting that harm to women here.
I imagine that some women can't control their sexual urges and must act.
Personally, I think that they can. My experience of women is that they
are often able to exercise control over their behaviours. Not having sex
for a day or two to avoid pregnancy is just so much too ask. It's
actually too much to ask. Let's promote instead something that harms
women and causes a decline in population all so some women don't have to
exercise any restraint when it comes to sex.
Do you think, for instance, that contraception has a lower or higher
success rate compared to the success rate for abortion procedures?
Which
do you think is more likely to fail under normal, careful, informed
practice?
I had a knee replaced last year. That was successful too----but it's not
something I want to repeat.
What would you think if were able to demonstrate a connection between
your birth control use and the need for your knee surgery? Interestingly
and as I recall, men don't need knee replacements as often as women.
WRONG. And trust me, this I know about. Women are three times more likely to
have arthritis, both osteo and rheumatoid, but far less likely to get joint
replacements as a result...and this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do
with birth control measures. As to that, men are far more likely to need
revision surgery than women are. What planet are you on?
Believing what you read can be problematic. I am willing to back my
assertions. Shall we look at the incidence of arthritis worldwide? Shall
we look at the incidence and compare it based on birth control is common
and where it isn't. Shall we look at the incidence of this ailment prior
to the beginning of birth control and then after? Shall we do the same
for other nations?
The onset of symptoms of arthritits happens to coincide in nations where
birth control such as the pill is prevlant. The onset of arthritis is
also consistent with women who have prolong use of decades of frequent
and intermittent use of hormones such as progesterone and estrogen. The
highest birth rate is Somalia, or one of the top three. The incidence of
arthritis there is significantly less than in North American.
Interestingly, so too is the use of birth control.
As a sidebar, one arthritis medication is also a known abortifacient.
One
difference is that women artifically change their body chemistry with
excessive and prolonged use of hormones. Prior to the use of birth
control, women didn't seem to need or suffer from such conditions or at
least no where near to what they do today.
Have you ever noticed that when someone says 'with all due respect' they are
about to prove that they don't have any? Respect, that is, for the person or
position being addressed? Well....
With all due respect, the 'facts' you have stated are incorrect, and the
opinion you have based upon them is three steps aslant of the universe.
You are quite sarcastic, but I'm sure that's never been pointed out to
you.
I had made a claim and I wiling to devote some time to demonstrating a
link. I am claiming that western science is biased in this area and that
if we were to look at the evidence on a global scale that we would see
that there is evidence to support my claim.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 02:49:39 PM |
|
|
In article <homo-A449FF.19064514032005@news.isp.giganews.com>,
homo@home.com says...
Believe it or not, most women take birth control so that they can become
pregnant when THEY want to. If they didn't want babies at all, they would do
something permanent, like getting their tubes tied. Most women don't want to
do something that final.
You are leaving me with a very negative impression of women who use
birth control. Birth control is not a necessity. I think that a sane,
reasonable adult could abstain from vaginal sex for a day or two to
avoid a conception. I think it is possible for healthy and normal
individual to find other ways to have sex during a fertile period. I
think that women can control their sexual desires/urges.
There's a rather large problem with relying on some type of 'rhythm
method of contraception (ie. periodic abstention at presumed infertile
times)... the result tend to be pregnancy! :-)
Such methods are fairly useful in trying for a pregnancy at the time
when fertility is likely to be highest, but not very good at telling
when fertility is NOT present.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sergeant America" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 06:46:00 AM |
|
|
Pat Winstanley wrote:
In article <homo-A449FF.19064514032005@news.isp.giganews.com>,
homo@home.com says...
Believe it or not, most women take birth control so that they can become
pregnant when THEY want to. If they didn't want babies at all, they would do
something permanent, like getting their tubes tied. Most women don't want to
do something that final.
You are leaving me with a very negative impression of women who use
birth control. Birth control is not a necessity. I think that a sane,
reasonable adult could abstain from vaginal sex for a day or two to
avoid a conception. I think it is possible for healthy and normal
individual to find other ways to have sex during a fertile period. I
think that women can control their sexual desires/urges.
There's a rather large problem with relying on some type of 'rhythm
method of contraception (ie. periodic abstention at presumed infertile
times)... the result tend to be pregnancy! :-)
Not when done scientifically. It's called Natural Family Planning.
Such methods are fairly useful in trying for a pregnancy at the time
when fertility is likely to be highest, but not very good at telling
when fertility is NOT present.
False. You don't know what you're talking about.
I'd stick to condoms and STDs and cutting to pieces young human bodies
if I were you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 02:47:19 PM |
|
|
In article <HCoZd.5435$mq2.2531@trnddc08>,
says...
And? If a woman is going to use birth control to not have children,
being unable to conceive is a bonus.
Believe it or not, most women take birth control so that they can become
pregnant when THEY want to. If they didn't want babies at all, they would do
something permanent, like getting their tubes tied. Most women don't want to
do something that final.
Actually quite a lot of women use contraception despite not wanting to
have children *at all* never mind not wanting them just yet... because
they are unable to get the medical profession to agree to sterilise
them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sergeant America" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 06:46:54 AM |
|
|
Pat Winstanley wrote:
In article <HCoZd.5435$mq2.2531@trnddc08>,
says...
And? If a woman is going to use birth control to not have children,
being unable to conceive is a bonus.
Believe it or not, most women take birth control so that they can become
pregnant when THEY want to. If they didn't want babies at all, they would do
something permanent, like getting their tubes tied. Most women don't want to
do something that final.
Actually quite a lot of women use contraception despite not wanting to
have children *at all* never mind not wanting them just yet... because
they are unable to get the medical profession to agree to sterilise
them.
Since when was a woman denied a purely elective procedure like that?
Hard to believe, unless there was a medical reason for it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 06:32:21 PM |
|
|
Sergeant America wrote:
Pat Winstanley wrote:
In article <HCoZd.5435$mq2.2531@trnddc08>,
says...
And? If a woman is going to use birth control to not have children,
being unable to conceive is a bonus.
Believe it or not, most women take birth control so that they can become
pregnant when THEY want to. If they didn't want babies at all, they would do
something permanent, like getting their tubes tied. Most women don't want to
do something that final.
Actually quite a lot of women use contraception despite not wanting to
have children *at all* never mind not wanting them just yet... because
they are unable to get the medical profession to agree to sterilise
them.
Since when was a woman denied a purely elective procedure like that?
I was.
As a matter of fact several women I know have been. The one I got the
biggest kick from was the one who was 37 with five children already.
Hard to believe, unless there was a medical reason for it.
The "medical reason" is the very one you are blathering- women are not
capable of making their own decisions regarding their own fertility.
--
--sexkitten--
In Loving Memory of Jim Addison
9/18/71 - 12/30/04
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 06:06:43 AM |
|
|
In article <r8jZd.4157$GI6.3207@trnddc05>,
says...
What makes you think a woman can prevent a pregnancy more easily than
she can have a pregnancy aborted? And how does that square with
situations where prevention failed (hence now a pregnancy)?
Abortion is a surgical procedure.
Or a medical one.
However the point is that using contraception (which can also be medical
or surgical) is often NOT a simple matter for a woman. There may well be
some methods she simply cannot use (many cannot use medicinal methods
and have to rely on physical methods, for instance), and those she can
use may not work particularly well for her or at all.
Meanwhile, abortion, per se, doesn't automatically make it less likely
that a woman will be unable to conceive and/or complete a pregnancy in
the future than does the use of contraceptive techniques. And even birth
techniques can impair the woman's future ability to carry a pregnancy
successfully.
Most of the time both contraception and abortion are a hassle for the
woman to deal with (albeit one is a pretty much daily thing for the
majority of the woman's fertile life and the other more likely to be
once in a lifetime if at all). Some of the time contraception, abortion
or birth can adversely affect the woman's future ability to have further
successfulo pregnancies... as can other factors such as infections and
general diseases.
I think you are making too many generalisations and then using them as
if they were the rule.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 02:27:06 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:40:55 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
......
Abortion is a surgical procedure. It's invasive. It's painful. It's
expensive. Too many, it seems, WILL damage the ability to conceive and bear
future children.
Early abortions can be a medical procedure rather than surgical. The
threat to fertility is contradicted by the claims, by pro-lifers, of
women having dozens of abortions.
Now you tell me which is easier; taking a pill every morning or doing this?
That would depend upon the individual, wouldn't it. Not being capable
of remembering to take a pill every day is not a crime.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 04:41:44 PM |
|
|
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:42fcf4ab.1742010939@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:40:55 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
.....
Abortion is a surgical procedure. It's invasive. It's painful. It's
expensive. Too many, it seems, WILL damage the ability to conceive and
bear
future children.
Early abortions can be a medical procedure rather than surgical. The
threat to fertility is contradicted by the claims, by pro-lifers, of
women having dozens of abortions.
Now you tell me which is easier; taking a pill every morning or doing
this?
That would depend upon the individual, wouldn't it. Not being capable
of remembering to take a pill every day is not a crime.
Not at the moment, no. However, having an abortion, thus ending a human
life....just because you were irresponsible... is immoral, unethical and far
more irresponsible. I believe that if you want sex, and don't want a baby,
that you think very seriously about how important it is to TAKE THAT PILL.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 05:49:49 PM |
|
|
In article <IqoZd.5434$mq2.418@trnddc08>,
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:42fcf4ab.1742010939@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:40:55 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
.....
Abortion is a surgical procedure. It's invasive. It's painful. It's
expensive. Too many, it seems, WILL damage the ability to conceive and
bear
future children.
Early abortions can be a medical procedure rather than surgical. The
threat to fertility is contradicted by the claims, by pro-lifers, of
women having dozens of abortions.
Now you tell me which is easier; taking a pill every morning or doing
this?
That would depend upon the individual, wouldn't it. Not being capable
of remembering to take a pill every day is not a crime.
Not at the moment, no. However, having an abortion, thus ending a human
life....just because you were irresponsible... is immoral, unethical and far
more irresponsible. I believe that if you want sex, and don't want a baby,
that you think very seriously about how important it is to TAKE THAT PILL.
It is irresponsibe to promote products that negatively affect a woman's
health. And the claim is that men cannot control their sexual urges. Or
the claim is made of teenagers. How about just having a different type
of sex, or avoiding vaginal intercourse on fertile days.
As I recall, there are babies born to women who have been using birth
control and there are also further complications for infants who have
been concieved and received a steady diet of those hormones prior to the
noticing that the pregnancy was intact.
If we are going to pursue this then, let's also see women charged for
manslaughter when their use of birth control results in a lost embryo.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 07:29:56 PM |
|
|
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote in message
news:homo-171DB2.18494914032005@news.isp.giganews.com...
In article <IqoZd.5434$mq2.418@trnddc08>,
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:42fcf4ab.1742010939@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:40:55 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
.....
Abortion is a surgical procedure. It's invasive. It's painful. It's
expensive. Too many, it seems, WILL damage the ability to conceive and
bear
future children.
Early abortions can be a medical procedure rather than surgical. The
threat to fertility is contradicted by the claims, by pro-lifers, of
women having dozens of abortions.
Now you tell me which is easier; taking a pill every morning or doing
this?
That would depend upon the individual, wouldn't it. Not being capable
of remembering to take a pill every day is not a crime.
Not at the moment, no. However, having an abortion, thus ending a human
life....just because you were irresponsible... is immoral, unethical and
far
more irresponsible. I believe that if you want sex, and don't want a
baby,
that you think very seriously about how important it is to TAKE THAT
PILL.
It is irresponsibe to promote products that negatively affect a woman's
health. And the claim is that men cannot control their sexual urges. Or
the claim is made of teenagers. How about just having a different type
of sex, or avoiding vaginal intercourse on fertile days.
Oh, yeah, like that works.
As I recall, there are babies born to women who have been using birth
control and there are also further complications for infants who have
been concieved and received a steady diet of those hormones prior to the
noticing that the pregnancy was intact.
If we are going to pursue this then, let's also see women charged for
manslaughter when their use of birth control results in a lost embryo.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 07:56:56 PM |
|
|
In article <oUqZd.2517$Z07.2383@trnddc02>,
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote in message
news:homo-171DB2.18494914032005@news.isp.giganews.com...
In article <IqoZd.5434$mq2.418@trnddc08>,
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:42fcf4ab.1742010939@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:40:55 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
.....
Abortion is a surgical procedure. It's invasive. It's painful. It's
expensive. Too many, it seems, WILL damage the ability to conceive and
bear
future children.
Early abortions can be a medical procedure rather than surgical. The
threat to fertility is contradicted by the claims, by pro-lifers, of
women having dozens of abortions.
Now you tell me which is easier; taking a pill every morning or doing
this?
That would depend upon the individual, wouldn't it. Not being capable
of remembering to take a pill every day is not a crime.
Not at the moment, no. However, having an abortion, thus ending a human
life....just because you were irresponsible... is immoral, unethical and
far
more irresponsible. I believe that if you want sex, and don't want a
baby,
that you think very seriously about how important it is to TAKE THAT
PILL.
It is irresponsibe to promote products that negatively affect a woman's
health. And the claim is that men cannot control their sexual urges. Or
the claim is made of teenagers. How about just having a different type
of sex, or avoiding vaginal intercourse on fertile days.
Oh, yeah, like that works.
It does. I think that the clinical evidence would support me that a
woman's chance of pregnancy when experiencing oral sex is pretty much
nil.
Further, I think the evidence is fairly overwhelming that when women
don't have sex they don't get pregnant.
Of course, Diana, women are untamable savages who lack the ability to
regulate their sexual impulses. Asking a woman to make different choices
is so unreasonable.
Promoting birth control when there are other options and to the
exclusion of those options is socially irresponsible.
As I recall, there are babies born to women who have been using birth
control and there are also further complications for infants who have
been concieved and received a steady diet of those hormones prior to the
noticing that the pregnancy was intact.
If we are going to pursue this then, let's also see women charged for
manslaughter when their use of birth control results in a lost embryo.
Since you have argued that the embryo is a human, can I please get your
support to see women who participate in the killing of their offspring
prosecuted fairly under the law.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 02:56:02 PM |
|
|
In article <homo-AE2C0F.20565614032005@news.isp.giganews.com>,
homo@home.com says...
the claim is made of teenagers. How about just having a different type
of sex, or avoiding vaginal intercourse on fertile days.
Oh, yeah, like that works.
It does. I think that the clinical evidence would support me that a
woman's chance of pregnancy when experiencing oral sex is pretty much
nil.
Further, I think the evidence is fairly overwhelming that when women
don't have sex they don't get pregnant.
Simply avoiding (sperm exchange) sex on the days when it is *guessed*
that fertility is absent really does not work as anything like a
reliable method of contraception, sorry.
Meanwhile there are many people who find oral sex abhorrent (for various
reasons, including early brainwashing). Why should they NOT have
'ordinary' sex?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sergeant America" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
16 Mar 2005 06:42:08 AM |
|
|
Pat Winstanley wrote:
In article <homo-AE2C0F.20565614032005@news.isp.giganews.com>,
homo@home.com says...
the claim is made of teenagers. How about just having a different type
of sex, or avoiding vaginal intercourse on fertile days.
Oh, yeah, like that works.
It does. I think that the clinical evidence would support me that a
woman's chance of pregnancy when experiencing oral sex is pretty much
nil.
Further, I think the evidence is fairly overwhelming that when women
don't have sex they don't get pregnant.
Simply avoiding (sperm exchange) sex on the days when it is *guessed*
that fertility is absent really does not work as anything like a
reliable method of contraception, sorry.
It most certainly is. It's called Natural Family Planning.
http://www.ccli.org/
Women can only get pregant on certain days. All that's required by
couples is some discipline, which is probably the reason why animals
like you are against it.
Meanwhile there are many people who find oral sex abhorrent (for various
reasons, including early brainwashing).
That's it, people tell their kids ALL about oral sex when they're young
enough to be brainwashed.
Why should they NOT have
'ordinary' sex?
What does it matter?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Duca" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 07:48:26 PM |
|
|
in article 423829A0.485E09A5@hotmail.com, Sergeant America at
sergeant_america@hotmail.com wrote on 3/16/05 7:42 AM:
Pat Winstanley wrote:
In article <homo-AE2C0F.20565614032005@news.isp.giganews.com>,
homo@home.com says...
the claim is made of teenagers. How about just having a different type
of sex, or avoiding vaginal intercourse on fertile days.
Oh, yeah, like that works.
It does. I think that the clinical evidence would support me that a
woman's chance of pregnancy when experiencing oral sex is pretty much
nil.
Further, I think the evidence is fairly overwhelming that when women
don't have sex they don't get pregnant.
Simply avoiding (sperm exchange) sex on the days when it is *guessed*
that fertility is absent really does not work as anything like a
reliable method of contraception, sorry.
It most certainly is. It's called Natural Family Planning.
http://www.ccli.org/
Women can only get pregant on certain days. All that's required by
couples is some discipline, which is probably the reason why animals
like you are against it.
I don't know what's more ridiculous...that Sarge would willingly
stay off the wife when she's ovulating--or that Mrs. America could KEEP him
off.
Paul
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 08:56:46 PM |
|
|
Paul Duca wrote:
in article 423829A0.485E09A5@hotmail.com, Sergeant America at
sergeant_america@hotmail.com wrote on 3/16/05 7:42 AM:
Pat Winstanley wrote:
In article <homo-AE2C0F.20565614032005@news.isp.giganews.com>,
homo@home.com says...
the claim is made of teenagers. How about just having a different type
of sex, or avoiding vaginal intercourse on fertile days.
Oh, yeah, like that works.
It does. I think that the clinical evidence would support me that a
woman's chance of pregnancy when experiencing oral sex is pretty much
nil.
Further, I think the evidence is fairly overwhelming that when women
don't have sex they don't get pregnant.
Simply avoiding (sperm exchange) sex on the days when it is *guessed*
that fertility is absent really does not work as anything like a
reliable method of contraception, sorry.
It most certainly is. It's called Natural Family Planning.
http://www.ccli.org/
Women can only get pregant on certain days. All that's required by
couples is some discipline, which is probably the reason why animals
like you are against it.
I don't know what's more ridiculous...that Sarge would willingly
stay off the wife when she's ovulating--or that Mrs. America could KEEP him
off.
There's rumors of he and the Captain.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sergeant America" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
18 Mar 2005 04:33:32 PM |
|
|
Frank Dwyer wrote:
Paul Duca wrote:
in article 423829A0.485E09A5@hotmail.com, Sergeant America at
sergeant_america@hotmail.com wrote on 3/16/05 7:42 AM:
Pat Winstanley wrote:
In article <homo-AE2C0F.20565614032005@news.isp.giganews.com>,
homo@home.com says...
the claim is made of teenagers. How about just having a different type
of sex, or avoiding vaginal intercourse on fertile days.
Oh, yeah, like that works.
It does. I think that the clinical evidence would support me that a
woman's chance of pregnancy when experiencing oral sex is pretty much
nil.
Further, I think the evidence is fairly overwhelming that when women
don't have sex they don't get pregnant.
Simply avoiding (sperm exchange) sex on the days when it is *guessed*
that fertility is absent really does not work as anything like a
reliable method of contraception, sorry.
It most certainly is. It's called Natural Family Planning.
http://www.ccli.org/
Women can only get pregant on certain days. All that's required by
couples is some discipline, which is probably the reason why animals
like you are against it.
I don't know what's more ridiculous...that Sarge would willingly
stay off the wife when she's ovulating--or that Mrs. America could KEEP him
off.
There's rumors of he and the Captain.
Sorry but Natural Family Planning is for heterosexual couples, typically
married. It's not recommended for hammas.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 05:04:39 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:41:44 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:42fcf4ab.1742010939@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:40:55 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
.....
Abortion is a surgical procedure. It's invasive. It's painful. It's
expensive. Too many, it seems, WILL damage the ability to conceive and
bear
future children.
Early abortions can be a medical procedure rather than surgical. The
threat to fertility is contradicted by the claims, by pro-lifers, of
women having dozens of abortions.
Now you tell me which is easier; taking a pill every morning or doing
this?
That would depend upon the individual, wouldn't it. Not being capable
of remembering to take a pill every day is not a crime.
Not at the moment, no. However, having an abortion, thus ending a human
life....
An abortion does not end a human life. You will not get far in any
discussion if you insist on lying.
just because you were irresponsible...
Being forgetful is not being irresponsible.
is immoral, unethical and far more irresponsible.
Try again, this time without the big lie.
I believe that if you want sex, and don't want a baby,
that you think very seriously about how important it is to TAKE THAT PILL.
Not everyone *can* take THE PILL. There is *NO* form of contraception
that is not without possibily unwanted side effects.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 07:29:17 PM |
|
|
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:42fd19d1.1751521394@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
<snip to>
able
of remembering to take a pill every day is not a crime.
Not at the moment, no. However, having an abortion, thus ending a human
life....
An abortion does not end a human life. You will not get far in any
discussion if you insist on lying.
IT's not a rabbit in there. And you are assuming the consequent here.
just because you were irresponsible...
Being forgetful is not being irresponsible.
is immoral, unethical and far more irresponsible.
Try again, this time without the big lie.
Not a lie...an oppinion which I have every right to hold.
I believe that if you want sex, and don't want a baby,
that you think very seriously about how important it is to TAKE THAT PILL.
Not everyone *can* take THE PILL. There is *NO* form of contraception
that is not without possibily unwanted side effects.
True. Not everyone can. However, every one CAN use a condom (if not latex,
the new ones that are not latex and actually have smaller pores and may be
even better at preventing pregnancy and STD's)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 07:52:30 PM |
|
|
In article <NTqZd.2516$Z07.2450@trnddc02>,
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:42fd19d1.1751521394@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
<snip to>
able
of remembering to take a pill every day is not a crime.
Not at the moment, no. However, having an abortion, thus ending a human
life....
An abortion does not end a human life. You will not get far in any
discussion if you insist on lying.
IT's not a rabbit in there. And you are assuming the consequent here.
just because you were irresponsible...
Being forgetful is not being irresponsible.
is immoral, unethical and far more irresponsible.
Try again, this time without the big lie.
Not a lie...an oppinion which I have every right to hold.
I believe that if you want sex, and don't want a baby,
that you think very seriously about how important it is to TAKE THAT PILL.
Not everyone *can* take THE PILL. There is *NO* form of contraception
that is not without possibily unwanted side effects.
True. Not everyone can. However, every one CAN use a condom (if not latex,
the new ones that are not latex and actually have smaller pores and may be
even better at preventing pregnancy and STD's)
Controlling sexual impulses 12 times a year is also an option, yet you
continue to promote things with known side effects. You could be
advising women to exercise some discretion when they have sex rather
than doing things that can harm them. I find your position to be wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 06:08:34 AM |
|
|
In article <NTqZd.2516$Z07.2450@trnddc02>,
says...
An abortion does not end a human life. You will not get far in any
discussion if you insist on lying.
IT's not a rabbit in there.
And it's still no more or less 'a human life' than is a life human sperm
or live human ovum.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sergeant America" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 08:58:16 PM |
|
|
Pat Winstanley wrote:
In article <NTqZd.2516$Z07.2450@trnddc02>,
says...
An abortion does not end a human life. You will not get far in any
discussion if you insist on lying.
IT's not a rabbit in there.
And it's still no more or less 'a human life' than is a life human sperm
or live human ovum.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sergeant America" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
15 Mar 2005 08:59:08 PM |
|
|
Pat Winstanley wrote:
In article <NTqZd.2516$Z07.2450@trnddc02>,
says...
An abortion does not end a human life. You will not get far in any
discussion if you insist on lying.
IT's not a rabbit in there.
And it's still no more or less 'a human life' than is a life human sperm
or live human ovum.
Don't you know what a gamete is? Are you aware of how sexual
reproduction actually takes place?
Apparently not.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 10:14:09 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 01:29:17 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:42fd19d1.1751521394@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
<snip to>
able
of remembering to take a pill every day is not a crime.
Not at the moment, no. However, having an abortion, thus ending a human
life....
An abortion does not end a human life. You will not get far in any
discussion if you insist on lying.
IT's not a rabbit in there. And you are assuming the consequent here.
I am not, but feel free to lie about me.
just because you were irresponsible...
Being forgetful is not being irresponsible.
is immoral, unethical and far more irresponsible.
Try again, this time without the big lie.
Not a lie...an oppinion which I have every right to hold.
You did not state it to be merely your opinion.
I believe that if you want sex, and don't want a baby,
that you think very seriously about how important it is to TAKE THAT PILL.
Not everyone *can* take THE PILL. There is *NO* form of contraception
that is not without possibily unwanted side effects.
True. Not everyone can. However, every one CAN use a condom (if not latex,
the new ones that are not latex and actually have smaller pores and may be
even better at preventing pregnancy and STD's)
There are unwanted side effects of the condom that some people are not
willing to accept. There is *NO* form of contraception that is not
without possibily unwanted side effects. Human beings should, IMO, be
allowed to do their own risk management.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 03:46:34 PM |
|
|
In article <42fcf4ab.1742010939@news.la.sbcglobal.net>,
(Paul Anderson) wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:40:55 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
.....
Abortion is a surgical procedure. It's invasive. It's painful. It's
expensive. Too many, it seems, WILL damage the ability to conceive and bear
future children.
Early abortions can be a medical procedure rather than surgical. The
threat to fertility is contradicted by the claims, by pro-lifers, of
women having dozens of abortions.
Now you tell me which is easier; taking a pill every morning or doing this?
That would depend upon the individual, wouldn't it. Not being capable
of remembering to take a pill every day is not a crime.
Which assumes that taking a pill solves the problem. As I recall, there
are documented cases where women receive regular injections (no pill to
forget) and still become pregnant.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Somewriter" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 06:25:04 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:40:55 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
Abortion is a surgical procedure.
Not all abortions are; some are medically administered without the use
of invase means. And they can be administered much earlier in the
first trimester than a surgical abortion.
[...]
Now you tell me which is easier; taking a pill every morning or doing this?
Neither choice is easy, considering both options come with risks.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sid9" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
13 Mar 2005 10:55:05 AM |
|
|
Pat Winstanley wrote:
In article <drOYd.1051$mq2.472@trnddc08>,
dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net says...
Never thought that a woman can prevent a pregnancy in the first
place far more easily than she can abort one, have you?
What makes you think a woman can prevent a pregnancy more easily than
she can have a pregnancy aborted? And how does that square with
situations where prevention failed (hence now a pregnancy)?
Do you think, for instance, that contraception has a lower or higher
success rate compared to the success rate for abortion procedures?
Which do you think is more likely to fail under normal, careful,
informed practice?
Many of those who oppose choice also oppose contraception.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 10:41:14 AM |
|
|
"Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:dc_Yd.27979$5T6.337@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
Pat Winstanley wrote:
In article <drOYd.1051$mq2.472@trnddc08>,
dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net says...
Never thought that a woman can prevent a pregnancy in the first
place far more easily than she can abort one, have you?
What makes you think a woman can prevent a pregnancy more easily than
she can have a pregnancy aborted? And how does that square with
situations where prevention failed (hence now a pregnancy)?
Do you think, for instance, that contraception has a lower or higher
success rate compared to the success rate for abortion procedures?
Which do you think is more likely to fail under normal, careful,
informed practice?
Many of those who oppose choice also oppose contraception.
and many (like me) don't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 02:36:40 PM |
|
|
In article <K8jZd.4158$GI6.1406@trnddc05>,
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:dc_Yd.27979$5T6.337@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
Pat Winstanley wrote:
In article <drOYd.1051$mq2.472@trnddc08>,
dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net says...
Never thought that a woman can prevent a pregnancy in the first
place far more easily than she can abort one, have you?
What makes you think a woman can prevent a pregnancy more easily than
she can have a pregnancy aborted? And how does that square with
situations where prevention failed (hence now a pregnancy)?
Do you think, for instance, that contraception has a lower or higher
success rate compared to the success rate for abortion procedures?
Which do you think is more likely to fail under normal, careful,
informed practice?
Many of those who oppose choice also oppose contraception.
and many (like me) don't.
You seem to say that women who have sex willingly are required to act
responsibly, yet many women who willingly use birth control don't. I
assume that you were aware that birth control could lead to heart
problems as an example. Why should the rest of us be saddles with your
health care expenses through insurance or government programs when it
was your choice not to have children and your choice to use birth
control.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: women as breeding stock |
14 Mar 2005 02:31:52 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:41:14 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
....
Many of those who oppose choice also oppose contraception.
and many (like me) don't.
Which is why you should support legal abortion. Those who fail to use
contraception will eventually become pregnant and seek an abortion.
Legal abortion clinics offer contraceptives and counseling as to use.
Illegal abortionists do not.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
