On 12 Mar 2005 14:45:10 -0800, "Hyerdahl"  wrote:

>
>Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
>> On 12 Mar 2005 06:23:27 -0800, "Hyerdahl"
 wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
>> >> On 11 Mar 2005 11:44:48 -0800, "Hyerdahl"

>wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Abortion alternatives bill has broad support in Legislature
>> >> >
>> >> >SOFTER APPROACH: This year's marquee abortion bill aims to
>prevent
>> >> >abortions by giving pregnant women support they need
- including
>> >> >housing and medical care - that might encourage them to have
>their
>> >> >child.
>> >> >
>> >> >SHOW ME THE MONEY: Pregnancy crisis centers that counsel women
>could
>> >> >apply for $2 million in state grants in 2007 - as long as they
>don't
>> >> >mention abortion as an option.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> This doesn't sound like a measure that you would support, Puke.
>> >
>>>
>> >Actually, I would.  I've always felt that the main reason women
>CHOOSE
>> >abortion is because they are in crisis.
>> >>
>> >> Are you a closet pro-lifer?  Maybe even a closet fundy?
>> >>
>> >:-)   Hardly.  However, you'll notice that this is what I would call
>a
>> >'friendly persuasion' and that abortion is still a choice, which is
>all
>> >I, as a feminist, insist upon.
>>
>>
>> But Puke!
>>
>Yes?



OH HO!  I've finally trained you to respond to your name.  Of course,
I've had pets who took less time to learn their names than it took
you.




>> This measure states that pregnancy crisis centers could apply for 2
>> million dollars AS LONG AS THEY DON'T MENTION ABORTION AS AN OPTION.
>>
>So what?  Women already know about abortion and can get the information
>from other places, like Planned parenthood.


Yes, but this involves tax dollars to pregnancy crisis centers.  This
is a major loss for you, Puke, and you know it.


>
>> It's not even WHETHER OR NOT THEY MENTION ABORTION; it's AS LONG AS
>> THEY DON'T MENTION IT.
>
>I think that's ok.  They don't have to mention it.  Folks like me,
>will. :-)  In fact, NARAL can always put out a HUGE campaign showing
>women where they can obtain abortions.


Yes, but they have to spend their membership dues to do it.


>> There isn't even any "choice" to kill babies that they will be
>allowed
>> to allude to.
>
>Again, can you name any 16 year old girl who doesn't know about
>abortion clinics?  :-)



That's like saying, can you name any 16 year old girl who doesn't know
about other options that the pregnancy crisis centers can refer to
them.

Obviously, there are some that DON'T know.



>> This is a pro-life bill all the way.  And you're FOR IT?  I GUARANTEE
>> you that your local NOW is very much AGAINST IT.  Obviously, you
>> haven't been checking in for bulletins.
>>
>> I am not a NOW member.  And they also have had presidents I haven't
>approved, so it's not likely that I'd join up now.  :-)  However, when
>they sponsor an agenda I do support, I send money.


Come on, Puke.  Where do you get money to send to ANYONE?  You're a
net receiver, not a net provider.



>> >> >BROAD SUPPORT: With anti-abortion majorities in both
chambers and
>> >the >> >governor's office, the bill seems destined to pass.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Anti-abortion majorities" in government?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Well, I'm not even convinced that Bush is
"anti-aboriton" but the
>> >majority of his voters are.
>>
>>
>> But Puke; you said that he was "stupid" and that his voters were
>> "stupid" so how can you possibly agree with him and them
on ANYTHING?
>>
>I agreed with Hitler on some things.  :-) 



Boy, I'll bet.  That doesn't surprise me one bit.



> I mean he provided some
>pretty good state music before he let his crazy making begin.  I don't
>particularly care where good ideas come from.  In fact, if you think
>about, I'm not religious but I think emulating the life of Jesus Christ
>isn't a bad plan.


And when did you ever refrain from casting the first stone, Puke?



>> And moreover, if those stupid people are rolling you and getting your
>> support on a pro-life bill, how stupid does that make you?
>>
>But they're not. 


> I make my own choices, dogbreath; always have; always
>will.


Your choices are  limited, Puke, by your own lack of substance.



>> >> Why, Puke, I thought that women weren't willing to ALLOW
>politicians
>> >> to take away their reproductive rights.
>> >
>> >There are no rights being "taken away" here, Dave
Sim cockpuppet.  A
>> >woman would still have the right to choose.

>> "Anti-abortion majorities" suggests popularly-elected officials
>poised
>> to make abortion illegal.
>
>They can't.  Women have the science and technology to make what men
>say, ineffectual.



WOMEN have the science and technology?  Excuse me, Puke, but I believe
that it's MEN who have the technology.


------------------------------------

grizzlieantagonist{at}yahoo.com

"Ladies and gentlemen - let's have a round of applause for tonight's
player of the game - FRAN-CIS-CO SAN-N-N-N-TOS!
    - Brian Anthony (P.A. announcer at Grizzlie Stadium), June 11, 2004


"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their
disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites; in proportion as
their love of justice is above their rapacity; in proportion as their
soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and
presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the
counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. 
Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be
placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must
be without.  It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men
of intemperate minds cannot be free.  Their passions forge their
fetters."
     
     - Edmund Burke, Letter to a Member of the National Assembly (1791)


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/12/05 8:56:52 PM ---