Johnny wrote:

"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1120244850.043390.39360@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Johnny wrote:

"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1120240129.029750.132510@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

Johnny wrote:

"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:oeVwe.7860$Iv6.1998@trnddc03...

Johnny wrote:

"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1120145086.964062.304030@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Johnny wrote:

"Dubh Ghall" <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message
news:qkc6c19te0l69t0u4cc2k3bk6ttde2n1ga@4ax.com...

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 09:17:28 -0400, "Johnny"
<wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:

You fail to see the hypocrisy?
I am NOT defending illegal acts,

Now *that* was emphasis.

while those of you who resist a proper and
adequate investigation of abortion clinic records are showing
us
your
hypocrisy and your defense of sex criminals who impregnate
underage
women.

In what way?

Are you trying to tell us that the only people who want
abortions,
are
under age
girls?

Are you also trying to tell us that the parents of those under
age
girls,
are
protecting the male who raped their daughter.

Are you aware, that the age of consent, is the same for a male
as
for a
female.

Are you also aware that some under age girls, become pregnant
as
a
result
of
intercourse with under age boys.
That, of course, means that both partners are breaking the
law.

However, as they are both under age, which one do you
prosecute?

What part of freedom of religion

Freedom of religion does not come into it, where family
planning
clinics
are
concerned.
Nor does it apply where priests are raping children.

and privacy rights are above your mental
capacity to understand the paradox here?

Privacy rights end, at the point where a priest makes an
inappropriate
advance,
to anyone, minor or otherwise.

When a judge thinks that there are grounds, then a search
warrant
can
be
issued,
to a church, or to a family planning clinic.

By the by, family planning clinics, in general, are just what
the
name
suggests.
They are places where people can go for advice and information
about
family
planning. If they are like similar clinics, all over the
world,
they
also
supply various contraceptive solutions, to meet differing
needs.

Abortion, is only a very small, and legal, part of what they
do.

Also, as I understand it, every effort is made to persuade the
potential
mother,
to carry to term.

It is probably true, that they will supply contraceptives to
what
are
technically, minors. But then, when faced with a choice,
supply
contraceptives
to a minor, now, or perform an abortion on a minor, in a
couple
of
months:
What do you choose?

Preferably, neither.

For all intents and purposes, "neither" is not a valid option.

Wrong.
Only pimps and whores and fornicators and adulterers and such
think
like
you.

Your ad hominem notwithstanding, which would you choose, if
"neither"
is
not an option?

Responsibility.

That means contraceptives and/or abortion.

Contraceptives are things that people can obtain on their own
without
tax
dollars providing them.

They already do that. Tax dollars do not pay for condoms, birth
control, or abortions in the overwhelming majority of cases. In
fact,
To the best of my knowledge, tax dollars do not pay for any condoms.

She
does not want to be pregnant, and she is not going to continue a
pregnancy.

Who told you that?

"She" did, in this scenario.

She who?

"She" the woman's opinion that you want to ignore. "She" that wants
the birth control, or if that fails and she becomes pregnant, the
abortion.

Did you ask her?

It is evident from the scenario.

How do you know she did not want to be pregnant?

If she wanted to be pregnant, she would not be wanting birth control
or
an abortion.

The most compassionate and sensible thing to do is
encourage the use of contraceptives to prevent the pregnancy,

Is that offical CDC, Breast Cancer research policy?

Wait... are you saying that contraceptives, such as condoms,
cause
breast
cancer?!

Condoms, no.
Only thing bad I can think of with condoms is allergy to latex.

And the increased risk of cancer from birth control is minimal,
bordering on non-existant. There are many other factors in the
woman's
life that pose a much greater risk of breast cancer.

Your opinions are too bereft of compassion to pass muster with
me.

His opinions are irrelevant. Answer the question.
Contraceptives
or
abortion?

I already typed, "Preferably, nethier."

Which means you did not answer the question. "Neither" is not a
valid
option.

and
provide safe and legal abortions if the contraceptives fail and
she
desires to end the pregnancy.

Your hatred of women is evident since you are for them
contracting
breast
cancer and since you are for risking their fertility.

Condoms cause breast cancer?!

Never saw a study on if they could or not.
I guess it depends on how condoms are used.

And, thankfully, not your decision to start with.

It definitely isn't your decision.
What part are you missing on that?

Your answer to the question.

You still have not answered the question. And so that you remember,
here is the question again.

"But then, when faced with a choice, supply contraceptives to a
minor,
now, or perform an abortion on a minor, in a couple of months:
What do you choose?"

"Neither" is not a valid answer.

Your trap is a piece of *****, imo.

No trap there.

Ridiculous.

Yes, you are.

You fail to provide enough responses for it not to be some sort
of manufactured question to entrap people into your only presented
choices.

You are the one trying to control her.

She will get one or the other.

Therefore, "neither" is not a valid answer.

She WILL get birth control
or an abortion.

She will not continue the pregnancy, and she would
rather not get pregnant to start with.

You failed to present all choices available to women.

That is because none of the rest of the choices are valid in this
scenario.

She is going to have sex.

She will not continue any
resulting pregnancy.

Therefore, your choices are to let her get an use
birth control now, or watch her get an abortion later.

The choices you presented are tainted with health risks to women.

But none of the risks are as great as continuing her pregnancy,
particularly against her will.

A simple request for you to answer the question asked.

I already told you my answer.

No, you didn't.

I gave you the options to choose from. "Neither" is
not an option.

There are only two options available, since she will not continue her
pregnancy if it happens.

There are more than two options, yet you are insisting that there are not
more than two options.

In this scenario, there are only two options.

If she will not continue her pregnancy why should I choose contraception
or
abortion for her?

You have lost track of the original question and scenario, probably
because of all your ineffective diversionary tactics.

Here is the
original question again.

"It is probably true, that [family planning clinics] will supply
contraceptives to what are technically, minors. But then, when faced
with a choice, supply contraceptives to a minor, now, or perform an
abortion on a minor, in a couple of months:
What do you choose?"

You gave an invalid answer to the question. I am trying to get you to
give a valid one.

Why do you expect me to make the choice for her?

Because you are the one that thinks you can dictate people's decisions
to them, as well ask take away options from which to choose.

I told you, "Preferably neither."

And I told you, that is not a valid answer.

My answer is perfectly valid.

Not in this scenario.

Your refusal to accept that neither contraceptives nor abortion can be a
preferred choice is quite unbecoming of you.

Well, the pregnancy that you want to force her to endure is less
preferable to her than either contraceptive or an abortion,

and she
would choose the birth control first if it is available so she does not
get pregnant, or the abortion if she does get pregnant.

Your speculation that she will not continue the pregnancy is merely
speculation.

Not in this scenario.

If she wanted to get pregnant, she would not be
using contraceptives.

And if she wanted to continue the pregnancy, she
would not be getting an abortion.

How do you know, if you are Pro-Choice that she won't continue the
pregnancy, and why would it be that she would make such a choice?

Because she want to get an abortion.

And you cannot read the mind and
the future decisions of every women that walks through the door.

And
she would make the choice about her pregnancy because she is pregnant.

If you deny her birth control, then she WILL get an abortion. And the
abortion rate will go up drastically.

Are you again failing to address the situation in full?

No.

But you are failing to look at the complete situation. As usual.

Either she gets birth
control now, or she gets an abortion later.

Your options are limited and both of them entail risks to the woman.

But far, far less risks than the alternative, being forced to continue
her pregnancy against her will.

Not to mention less costly and
damaging.

She will NOT continue her
pregnancy if she gets pregnant.

This is someone you know personally?

No.

This is the scenario as it is laid out, the one that you will not
give a valid answer two.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!

You must choose from the options
given, supply the minor with contraceptives now,

Not my responsibility.

You implied that it was when you implied that you would force her to
continue an unwanted pregnancy by denying her both birth control and an
abortion.

I never implied that I would force her.

Yes, you did.

You would deny her contraceptives and abortion.

That
means that she cannot control her fertility,

and she is forced to
continue any resulting pregnancy because you have removed all other
valid options.

I typed, "Preferably, neither."

Which is not a valid answer.

It is not my responsibilty as a male citizen to obtain birth control
pills
or abortions.

It is, however, you responsibility as a compassionate and caring person
to work to make sure that both are available to her to use and acquire
as the need arises.

or perform an abortion
in a few months when she becomes pregnant because you refused to
supply
her with birth control.

Again, not my responsibility.

You implied that it was when you implied that you would force her to
continue an unwanted pregnancy by denying her both birth control and an
abortion.

You are lying again.

No, I have not. The force was implicit, and I stated quite clearly why
it was implicit.

If you force her to remain pregnant by denying her any options to the
pregnancy, then you are responsible for that pregnancy.

I did NOT impregnate her and neither did she impregnate herself, and if
the
sex act was consensual, I bear zero responsibility to her or to the
father
of the child to provide either of them with contraceptives or an
abortion.

You are responsible, however, for making sure that both are available
for her to use and acquire.

If you work to get rid of either one, or
worse, both, then you become responsible for her being forced to
continue her pregnancy against her will because you worked to remove
every valid and legal option available to her.

If you demand that they follow your will, then you are responsible for
the results of them doing so.

On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 22:40:18 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:

Your trap is a piece of *****, imo.

No trap there.

Ridiculous. You fail to provide enough responses for it not to be some
sort
of manufactured question to entrap people into your only presented
choices.
You failed to present all choices available to women.
The choices you presented are tainted with health risks to women.

Nonsense!

I created a simple scenario, and asked you to choose the lesser of two
evils, if
evil can be applied at all.

The rest is in your head, and nowhere else.

A simple request for you to answer the question asked.

I already told you my answer.

No, you evaded answering.

There are only two options available, since she will not continue her
pregnancy if it happens.

There are more than two options,

Not in this scenario.

yet you are insisting that there are not
more than two options.
If she will not continue her pregnancy why should I choose contraception
or
abortion for her?
Why do you expect me to make the choice for her?

I told you, "Preferably neither."

And I told you, that is not a valid answer.

My answer is perfectly valid.

When your choice is lamb or pork, chicken, is not an option.

Although "chicken", is exactly what you did.

Either she gets birth
control now, or she gets an abortion later.

Your options are limited and both of them entail risks to the woman.

What risks do contraceptives entail?

You are aware, I suppose, that pregnancy is it's self a risk,

and even
abstenance,can be harmful.

She will NOT continue her
pregnancy if she gets pregnant.

This is someone you know personally?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!

No, you silly arse, it is someone that I invented: Literally.

That is why I am able to say with such assurance, how she will behave.

She is a purely fictional character.

Of course it is perfectly normal, for the average usenet xtian fanatic, to
be
unable to tell reality from fiction.

You must choose from the options
given, supply the minor with contraceptives now,

Not my responsibility.

You implied that it was when you implied that you would force her to
continue an unwanted pregnancy by denying her both birth control and an
abortion.

I never implied that I would force her.
I typed, "Preferably, neither."

But as your PREFERRED actions, were limited to contraception, or abortion,
and
you denied both, you implied that you would force her carry an unwanted
pregnancy to term.

It is not my responsibilty as a male citizen to obtain birth control pills
or abortions.

It is just as much your responsibility,

to ensure that your sexual partner does
not become pregnant, against her will, as it is hers.

BTW, no one mentioned birth control pills.

Ever heard of condoms?

Or are you one of these ignorant, macho men, who believes that he has no
responsibility in the matter, and it is all down to the woman,
Conception, bearing, and raising the child, are all down to the woman: She
CHOSE
to do it, you were just having a bit of fun?

Condoms, no.
Only thing bad I can think of with condoms is allergy to latex.

Then kindly explain your "breast cancer" straw man.

Now you are going to show the group that you know so little about
contraception?