John H <jherring@cox.net> Wrote in message:r
> On Mon, 16 May 2022 22:51:05 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:>On Mon, 16 May 2022 12:45:02 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:>>>On Sun, 08 May 2022 13:36:41 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:>>>>>The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the>>>people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not>>>by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).>>>Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the>>>constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back>>>to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move. >>>>Does the viable infant get a choice?>>>>It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus>>kicking, right?>>>Are you willing to pay for all of the kids the mother (maybe a teen)>can't afford? >I suppose you do tho, with welfare, cost of crime and the prison>system. >In reality we are really just talking about poor people. Rich folks>have never had a problem ending a pregnancy and they never will. >>Poor people have abortions, rich women just have a tragic miscarriage.Perhaps if it weren't so lucrative, there'd be fewer babies born toteens. The 'morning after' or 'abortio
n' pills are not secret. I expect thosepoor kids learn about them in fourth grade.It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetuskicking, right?

I wonder why they are so supportive of giving women the right to
kill future democrats. Another reason to question the
intelligence of the leaders of the Democrat party.
--
lets go Brandon...

----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

On Mon, 16 May 2022 22:54:56 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

>On Mon, 16 May 2022 13:07:11 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 8 May 2022 15:26:53 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com"
>><3452471@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 4:54:21 PM UTC-4, waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>>>> > The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the
>>>> > people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not
>>>> > by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).
>>>> > Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the
>>>> > constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back
>>>> > to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.
>>>> ===
>>>>
>>>> I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states. Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the law of the land and established a "legal precedent" which has traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work.
>>>
>>>"They are in the minority however and seek to impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of how democracy is supposed to work."
>>>
>>>Yet it happens repeatedly, and some of the most egregious examples have been in the last few years. And you should be careful about painting everyone with that one brush you've recently armed yourself with. For example, I'm labelled and are considered a conservative. However, I believe that the government should not be in the marriage business, but rather just the civil union business, which after all is all they are concerned with anyway. If two "its" want to enter a civil contract, let them. But staying true to separation of church and state, if a church refuses to perform a wedding ceremony or a bakery reuses to make a cake for them, so be it. Abortion should be legal through the 1st trimester for anyone. After that, only in rape and incest cases or if medically necessary. After all, it is killing a human, and should have limits.
>>>
>>>I think you'd be surprised at how large a majority would present itself to support these types of compromises and solutions if the rhetoric would subside and the discussions could take place. Unfortunately, the liberal MSM won't allow that, as they (and others) make their money on keeping the pot stirred. Also, keep in mind that the so-called minority only appears that way because many, if not most, of the people in your perceived "minority" just don't go to the state capitol or SC steps to demonstrate. The vast majority of them are too busy holding down jobs, raising families, and doing the work that runs this country. When they do speak up, they are either ignored or labelled by the media and elite liberals as racists, xenophobic, misogynistic, etc. There's that pesky minority imposing their opinions and beliefs on us all again.
>>
>>Personally, I think a victim of either rape or incest should know so
>>well before three months afterwards. Any rape victim should be
>>screaming for the 'morning after' pill as should any incest victim. If
>>72 hours have passed, then the abortion pill is an alternative.
>>
>>There is no reason a rape or incest victim doesn't realize they're
>>pregnant within a month or two. Pregnancy tests are free at any
>>planned parenthood office.
>
>Aren't you being a little arbitrary when you place a hard and fast
>rule when it is OK to kill a baby?

What hard and fast rule?

>BTW don't you folks want to shut planned parenthood down? Now you are
>telling us they provide a valuable service.
>It is this flip flopping that makes you seem confused.

I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never
said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?

On Mon, 16 May 2022 23:31:12 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

>On Mon, 16 May 2022 23:15:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill
><califbill9998remove8@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 8 May 2022 13:54:20 -0700 (PDT),
>>> "waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>>>>> The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the
>>>>> people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not
>>>>> by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).
>>>>> Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the
>>>>> constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back
>>>>> to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.
>>>>
>>>> ===
>>>>
>>>> I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over
>>>> the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states.
>>>> Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were
>>>> added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by
>>>> congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest
>>>> those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade
>>>> ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the
>>>> law of the land and established a "legal precedent" which has
>>>> traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who
>>>> want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very
>>>> sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to
>>>> impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of
>>>> how democracy is supposed to work.
>>>
>>> Like killing babies?
>>>
>>> Does the viable infant get a choice?
>>>
>>> It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus
>>> kicking, right?
>>>
>>
>>Your argument is for a viable baby. Not viable in the first trimester.
>>Most any abortion these days is an admission of failure. What with all the
>>birth control methods available.
>
>These late term abortions are so rare the opponents can't usually cite
>a case but they want folks to think that is the norm.

Yeah, 6200 dead babies are not worth mentioning. Better do some
reading, Greg.

https://www.liveaction.org/news/cdc-report-later-abortions-often-public-believe/

On Tue, 17 May 2022 10:09:38 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart
<me@yourservice.com> wrote:

>John H <jherring@cox.net> Wrote in message:r
>> On Mon, 16 May 2022 22:51:05 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:>On Mon, 16 May 2022 12:45:02 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:>>>On Sun, 08 May 2022 13:36:41 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:>>>>>The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the>>>people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not>>>by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).>>>Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the>>>constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back>>>to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move. >>>>Does the viable infant get a choice?>>>>It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus>>kicking, right?>>>Are you willing to pay for all of the kids the mother (maybe a teen)>can't afford? >I suppose you do tho, with welfare, cost of crime and the prison>system. >In reality we are really just talking about poor people. Rich folks>have never had a problem ending a
>pregnancy and they never will. >>Poor people have abortions, rich women just have a tragic miscarriage.Perhaps if it weren't so lucrative, there'd be fewer babies born toteens. The 'morning after' or 'abortion' pills are not secret. I expect thosepoor kids learn about them in fourth grade.It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetuskicking, right?
>
>I wonder why they are so supportive of giving women the right to
> kill future democrats. Another reason to question the
> intelligence of the leaders of the Democrat party.

LOL!

On Tue, 17 May 2022 06:52:18 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 16 May 2022 22:51:05 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 16 May 2022 12:45:02 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 08 May 2022 13:36:41 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the
>>>>people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not
>>>>by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).
>>>>Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the
>>>>constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back
>>>>to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.
>>>
>>>Does the viable infant get a choice?
>>>
>>>It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus
>>>kicking, right?
>>
>>
>>Are you willing to pay for all of the kids the mother (maybe a teen)
>>can't afford?
>>I suppose you do tho, with welfare, cost of crime and the prison
>>system.
>>In reality we are really just talking about poor people. Rich folks
>>have never had a problem ending a pregnancy and they never will.
>>
>>Poor people have abortions, rich women just have a tragic miscarriage.
>
>Perhaps if it weren't so lucrative, there'd be fewer babies born to
>teens.

Where is the connection?

>
>The 'morning after' or 'abortion' pills are not secret. I expect those
>poor kids learn about them in fourth grade.
>
If these people were capable of wise decisions they wouldn't be poor.

>It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus
>kicking, right?

I would rather kill a kicking fetus than have to kill them when they
are kicking in my door.

On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

>>Aren't you being a little arbitrary when you place a hard and fast
>>rule when it is OK to kill a baby?
>
>What hard and fast rule?

Didn't you want to specify a number of weeks?

>
>>BTW don't you folks want to shut planned parenthood down? Now you are
>>telling us they provide a valuable service.
>>It is this flip flopping that makes you seem confused.
>
>I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never
>said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?

If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of your
comrades burn them. (google it)

On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:11:19 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 16 May 2022 23:31:12 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 16 May 2022 23:15:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill
>><califbill9998remove8@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 8 May 2022 13:54:20 -0700 (PDT),
>>>> "waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>>>>>> The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the
>>>>>> people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not
>>>>>> by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).
>>>>>> Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the
>>>>>> constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back
>>>>>> to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.
>>>>>
>>>>> ===
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over
>>>>> the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states.
>>>>> Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were
>>>>> added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by
>>>>> congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest
>>>>> those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade
>>>>> ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the
>>>>> law of the land and established a "legal precedent" which has
>>>>> traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who
>>>>> want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very
>>>>> sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to
>>>>> impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of
>>>>> how democracy is supposed to work.
>>>>
>>>> Like killing babies?
>>>>
>>>> Does the viable infant get a choice?
>>>>
>>>> It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus
>>>> kicking, right?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Your argument is for a viable baby. Not viable in the first trimester.
>>>Most any abortion these days is an admission of failure. What with all the
>>>birth control methods available.
>>
>>These late term abortions are so rare the opponents can't usually cite
>>a case but they want folks to think that is the norm.
>
>Yeah, 6200 dead babies are not worth mentioning. Better do some
>reading, Greg.
>
>https://www.liveaction.org/news/cdc-report-later-abortions-often-public-believe/

When I read I prefer the source document, not a book report from a
biased writer.
The 2019 is out now and " (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’
gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at =21 weeks’ "
https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/index.htm

This is not a big issue. Then you need to ask, how many were medically
indicated? (otherwise it is a crime just about everywhere)
Are we supposed to risk the life of the mother or deliver a baby with
a fatal birth defect that will have them suffering for a few months
before they die, if they are lucky.
Find me one documented case of a healthy mother aborting a healthy
child late term. Just one.

On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:12:13 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 17 May 2022 10:09:38 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart
><me@yourservice.com> wrote:
>
>>John H <jherring@cox.net> Wrote in message:r
>>> On Mon, 16 May 2022 22:51:05 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:>On Mon, 16 May 2022 12:45:02 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:>>>On Sun, 08 May 2022 13:36:41 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:>>>>>The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the>>>people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not>>>by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).>>>Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the>>>constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back>>>to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move. >>>>Does the viable infant get a choice?>>>>It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus>>kicking, right?>>>Are you willing to pay for all of the kids the mother (maybe a teen)>can't afford? >I suppose you do tho, with welfare, cost of crime and the prison>system. >In reality we are really just talking about poor people. Rich folks>have never had a problem ending a
>>pregnancy and they never will. >>Poor people have abortions, rich women just have a tragic miscarriage.Perhaps if it weren't so lucrative, there'd be fewer babies born toteens. The 'morning after' or 'abortion' pills are not secret. I expect thosepoor kids learn about them in fourth grade.It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetuskicking, right?
>>
>>I wonder why they are so supportive of giving women the right to
>> kill future democrats. Another reason to question the
>> intelligence of the leaders of the Democrat party.
>
>LOL!

They may be willing to cull the herd to keep health, welfare and crime
cost down so their programs look more affordable.

gfretwell@aol.com Wrote in message:r
> On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:12:13 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:>On Tue, 17 May 2022 10:09:38 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart><me@yourservice.com> wrote:>>>John H <jherring@cox.net> Wrote in message:r>>> On Mon, 16 May 2022 22:51:05 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:>On Mon, 16 May 2022 12:45:02 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:>>>On Sun, 08 May 2022 13:36:41 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:>>>>>The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the>>>people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not>>>by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).>>>Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the>>>constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back>>>to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move. >>>>Does the viable infant get a choice?>>>>It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus>>kicking, right?>>>Are you willing to pay for all of the kids the mother (maybe a teen)>can't afford? >I suppose you do tho, with welfare, cost of crime and the prison>system. >In reality we are really just talking about poor people. Rich folks>have never had a problem ending a>>pr
egnancy and they never will. >>Poor people have abortions, rich women just have a tragic miscarriage.Perhaps if it weren't so lucrative, there'd be fewer babies born toteens. The 'morning after' or 'abortion' pills are not secret. I expect thosepoor kids learn about them in fourth grade.It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetuskicking, right?>>>>I wonder why they are so supportive of giving women the right to>> kill future democrats. Another reason to question the>> intelligence of the leaders of the Democrat party.>>LOL!They may be willing to cull the herd to keep health, welfare and crimecost down so their programs look more affordable.

There's the right way to do thingd and there's the democrat way.
How will we ever be able to identify wrong thinking evil
bastards when the democrat party goes tits up?

----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

gfretwell@aol.com Wrote in message:r
> On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:>>Aren't you being a little arbitrary when you place a hard and fast>>rule when it is OK to kill a baby? >>What hard and fast rule?Didn't you want to specify a number of weeks? >>>BTW don't you folks want to shut planned parenthood down? Now you are>>telling us they provide a valuable service. >>It is this flip flopping that makes you seem confused.>>I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never>said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of yourcomrades burn them. (google it)

If a woman seeks an abortion, planned parenthood failed her.
--
lets go Brandon...

----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 12:33:49 AM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
> On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jher...@cox.net> wrote:

> >
> >I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never
> >said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?

> If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of your
> comrades burn them. (google it)

Your comrades seem to have convinced you that this is a binary issue. It is not. Most folks who believe that abortion should not be legal after the fetus is viable don't consider themselves to be "pro-lifers", and would never dream of burning a PP. That's just hyperbole on your part. There are certainly extreme views on both sides of this issue. But while the liberal MSM would have you believe otherwise, those people are the exception, not the rule.

On Sun, 08 May 2022 13:36:41 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

>The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the
>people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not
>by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).
>Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the
>constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back
>to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.

You're an amazing moron. The constitution is silent about lots of
things. Get back to us when your Constitutional law diploma arrives in
the mail.

On Wed, 18 May 2022 11:40:23 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com"
<3452471@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 12:33:49 AM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jher...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> >
>> >I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never
>> >said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?
>
>> If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of your
>> comrades burn them. (google it)
>
>Your comrades seem to have convinced you that this is a binary issue. It is not. Most folks who believe that abortion should not be legal after the fetus is viable don't consider themselves to be "pro-lifers", and would never dream of burning a PP. That's just hyperbole on your part. There are certainly extreme views on both sides of this issue. But while the liberal MSM would have you believe otherwise, those people are the exception, not the rule.

Abortion, like guns are issues driven be extremists and they are
happily exploited by politicians to obfuscate the real issues that are
being ignored.

On Wed, 18 May 2022 00:17:51 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

>On Tue, 17 May 2022 06:52:18 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 16 May 2022 22:51:05 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 16 May 2022 12:45:02 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 08 May 2022 13:36:41 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the
>>>>>people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not
>>>>>by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).
>>>>>Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the
>>>>>constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back
>>>>>to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.
>>>>
>>>>Does the viable infant get a choice?
>>>>
>>>>It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus
>>>>kicking, right?
>>>
>>>
>>>Are you willing to pay for all of the kids the mother (maybe a teen)
>>>can't afford?
>>>I suppose you do tho, with welfare, cost of crime and the prison
>>>system.
>>>In reality we are really just talking about poor people. Rich folks
>>>have never had a problem ending a pregnancy and they never will.
>>>
>>>Poor people have abortions, rich women just have a tragic miscarriage.
>>
>>Perhaps if it weren't so lucrative, there'd be fewer babies born to
>>teens.
>
>Where is the connection?
>>
>>The 'morning after' or 'abortion' pills are not secret. I expect those
>>poor kids learn about them in fourth grade.
>>
>If these people were capable of wise decisions they wouldn't be poor.

Is taking a pill a 'wise decision'? Is it more wise than having an
abortion?
>
>>It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus
>>kicking, right?
>
>I would rather kill a kicking fetus than have to kill them when they
>are kicking in my door.

So all babies born to the poor will kick at your door?

Nonsensical comments, Greg.

On Wed, 18 May 2022 00:33:37 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

>On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>>Aren't you being a little arbitrary when you place a hard and fast
>>>rule when it is OK to kill a baby?
>>
>>What hard and fast rule?
>
>Didn't you want to specify a number of weeks?
>
>>
>>>BTW don't you folks want to shut planned parenthood down? Now you are
>>>telling us they provide a valuable service.
>>>It is this flip flopping that makes you seem confused.
>>
>>I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never
>>said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?
>
>If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of your
>comrades burn them. (google it)

I don't attack PP. I may attack all the abortions they perform.

On Wed, 18 May 2022 12:07:37 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart
<me@yourservice.com> wrote:

>gfretwell@aol.com Wrote in message:r
>> On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:>>Aren't you being a little arbitrary when you place a hard and fast>>rule when it is OK to kill a baby? >>What hard and fast rule?Didn't you want to specify a number of weeks? >>>BTW don't you folks want to shut planned parenthood down? Now you are>>telling us they provide a valuable service. >>It is this flip flopping that makes you seem confused.>>I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never>said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of yourcomrades burn them. (google it)
>
>If a woman seeks an abortion, planned parenthood failed her.

Exactly. Perhaps Greg doesn't get it.

On Wed, 18 May 2022 00:46:54 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

>On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:11:19 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 16 May 2022 23:31:12 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 16 May 2022 23:15:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill
>>><califbill9998remove8@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 8 May 2022 13:54:20 -0700 (PDT),
>>>>> "waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>>>>>>> The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the
>>>>>>> people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not
>>>>>>> by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).
>>>>>>> Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the
>>>>>>> constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back
>>>>>>> to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ===
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over
>>>>>> the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states.
>>>>>> Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were
>>>>>> added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by
>>>>>> congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest
>>>>>> those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade
>>>>>> ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the
>>>>>> law of the land and established a "legal precedent" which has
>>>>>> traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who
>>>>>> want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very
>>>>>> sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to
>>>>>> impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of
>>>>>> how democracy is supposed to work.
>>>>>
>>>>> Like killing babies?
>>>>>
>>>>> Does the viable infant get a choice?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus
>>>>> kicking, right?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Your argument is for a viable baby. Not viable in the first trimester.
>>>>Most any abortion these days is an admission of failure. What with all the
>>>>birth control methods available.
>>>
>>>These late term abortions are so rare the opponents can't usually cite
>>>a case but they want folks to think that is the norm.
>>
>>Yeah, 6200 dead babies are not worth mentioning. Better do some
>>reading, Greg.
>>
>>https://www.liveaction.org/news/cdc-report-later-abortions-often-public-believe/
>
>When I read I prefer the source document, not a book report from a
>biased writer.
>The 2019 is out now and " (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’
>gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at =21 weeks’ "
>https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/index.htm
>
>This is not a big issue. Then you need to ask, how many were medically
>indicated? (otherwise it is a crime just about everywhere)
>Are we supposed to risk the life of the mother or deliver a baby with
>a fatal birth defect that will have them suffering for a few months
>before they die, if they are lucky.
>Find me one documented case of a healthy mother aborting a healthy
>child late term. Just one.

Most healthy mothers aborting a healthy late term baby don't advertise
the fact.

But here, another source:

"Late-term abortion is, fortunately, relatively rare. According to the
most recent CDC data, only 1.3 percent of abortions occur after 21
weeks. However, given the sheer number of abortions in this country
(638,169 reported to the CDC), that means there were at least 8,000
late-term abortions in the United States. As Jonah Goldberg notes
today, the pro-abortion-rights Guttmacher Institute puts the number
even higher, at roughly 12,000 late-term abortions per year. That’s a
lot of babies dying late in pregnancy. To gain a sense of perspective,
that number is comparable to the number of murders committed by
firearms in the same time period."

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/truth-about-late-term-abortions/

That's a lot of babies!

On Wed, 18 May 2022 16:41:58 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

>On Wed, 18 May 2022 11:40:23 -0700 (PDT), "345...@gmail.com"
><3452471@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 12:33:49 AM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>>> On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jher...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> >
>>> >I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never
>>> >said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?
>>
>>> If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of your
>>> comrades burn them. (google it)
>>
>>Your comrades seem to have convinced you that this is a binary issue. It is not. Most folks who believe that abortion should not be legal after the fetus is viable don't consider themselves to be "pro-lifers", and would never dream of burning a PP. That's just hyperbole on your part. There are certainly extreme views on both sides of this issue. But while the liberal MSM would have you believe otherwise, those people are the exception, not the rule.
>
>Abortion, like guns are issues driven be extremists and they are
>happily exploited by politicians to obfuscate the real issues that are
>being ignored.

You're right. Driven by right wing, pieces of shit, just like you.

On Wed, 18 May 2022 17:36:20 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 18 May 2022 00:33:37 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>Aren't you being a little arbitrary when you place a hard and fast
>>>>rule when it is OK to kill a baby?
>>>
>>>What hard and fast rule?
>>
>>Didn't you want to specify a number of weeks?
>>
>>>
>>>>BTW don't you folks want to shut planned parenthood down? Now you are
>>>>telling us they provide a valuable service.
>>>>It is this flip flopping that makes you seem confused.
>>>
>>>I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never
>>>said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?
>>
>>If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of your
>>comrades burn them. (google it)
>
>I don't attack PP. I may attack all the abortions they perform.

Too bad your father didn't pull out.

On Wed, 18 May 2022 17:41:19 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 18 May 2022 00:46:54 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:11:19 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 16 May 2022 23:31:12 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 16 May 2022 23:15:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill
>>>><califbill9998remove8@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 8 May 2022 13:54:20 -0700 (PDT),
>>>>>> "waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the
>>>>>>>> people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not
>>>>>>>> by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).
>>>>>>>> Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the
>>>>>>>> constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back
>>>>>>>> to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ===
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over
>>>>>>> the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states.
>>>>>>> Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were
>>>>>>> added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by
>>>>>>> congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest
>>>>>>> those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade
>>>>>>> ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the
>>>>>>> law of the land and established a "legal precedent" which has
>>>>>>> traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who
>>>>>>> want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very
>>>>>>> sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to
>>>>>>> impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of
>>>>>>> how democracy is supposed to work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like killing babies?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does the viable infant get a choice?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus
>>>>>> kicking, right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Your argument is for a viable baby. Not viable in the first trimester.
>>>>>Most any abortion these days is an admission of failure. What with all the
>>>>>birth control methods available.
>>>>
>>>>These late term abortions are so rare the opponents can't usually cite
>>>>a case but they want folks to think that is the norm.
>>>
>>>Yeah, 6200 dead babies are not worth mentioning. Better do some
>>>reading, Greg.
>>>
>>>https://www.liveaction.org/news/cdc-report-later-abortions-often-public-believe/
>>
>>When I read I prefer the source document, not a book report from a
>>biased writer.
>>The 2019 is out now and " (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’
>>gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at =21 weeks’ "
>>https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/index.htm
>>
>>This is not a big issue. Then you need to ask, how many were medically
>>indicated? (otherwise it is a crime just about everywhere)
>>Are we supposed to risk the life of the mother or deliver a baby with
>>a fatal birth defect that will have them suffering for a few months
>>before they die, if they are lucky.
>>Find me one documented case of a healthy mother aborting a healthy
>>child late term. Just one.
>
>Most healthy mothers aborting a healthy late term baby don't advertise
>the fact.
>
>But here, another source:
>
>"Late-term abortion is, fortunately, relatively rare. According to the
>most recent CDC data, only 1.3 percent of abortions occur after 21
>weeks. However, given the sheer number of abortions in this country
>(638,169 reported to the CDC), that means there were at least 8,000
>late-term abortions in the United States. As Jonah Goldberg notes
>today, the pro-abortion-rights Guttmacher Institute puts the number
>even higher, at roughly 12,000 late-term abortions per year. That’s a
>lot of babies dying late in pregnancy. To gain a sense of perspective,
>that number is comparable to the number of murders committed by
>firearms in the same time period."
>
>https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/truth-about-late-term-abortions/
>
>That's a lot of babies!

You're a lot of stupid.

On Wed, 18 May 2022 17:33:57 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 18 May 2022 00:17:51 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 17 May 2022 06:52:18 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 16 May 2022 22:51:05 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 16 May 2022 12:45:02 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 08 May 2022 13:36:41 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the
>>>>>>people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not
>>>>>>by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).
>>>>>>Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the
>>>>>>constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back
>>>>>>to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.
>>>>>
>>>>>Does the viable infant get a choice?
>>>>>
>>>>>It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus
>>>>>kicking, right?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Are you willing to pay for all of the kids the mother (maybe a teen)
>>>>can't afford?
>>>>I suppose you do tho, with welfare, cost of crime and the prison
>>>>system.
>>>>In reality we are really just talking about poor people. Rich folks
>>>>have never had a problem ending a pregnancy and they never will.
>>>>
>>>>Poor people have abortions, rich women just have a tragic miscarriage.
>>>
>>>Perhaps if it weren't so lucrative, there'd be fewer babies born to
>>>teens.
>>
>>Where is the connection?
>>>
>>>The 'morning after' or 'abortion' pills are not secret. I expect those
>>>poor kids learn about them in fourth grade.
>>>
>>If these people were capable of wise decisions they wouldn't be poor.
>
>Is taking a pill a 'wise decision'? Is it more wise than having an
>abortion?

Yes it is a decision and one they have to consciously make. They need
to go to the effort to get a prescription, come up with the $10 a
month to pay, then remember to take the pills on time and in sync.
If they screw up the pills, they can increase the chance of getting
pregnant.
That involves a conscious effort and more than a little wisdom.
Throw a few drugs in the mix and this may be beyond their ability

>>>It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus
>>>kicking, right?
>>
>>I would rather kill a kicking fetus than have to kill them when they
>>are kicking in my door.
>
>So all babies born to the poor will kick at your door?

It is a statistical fact. Where is most of the crime and most of the
murders?
The "My door" part was metaphorical but it wasn't always. I lived in
SE DC where these kind of crimes were more prevalent until I could
afford to get out. I probably knew a lot more people in that
socioeconomic situation than you did.
These are not the most responsible bunch.

All that said, if they would pop Norplants in those girls in middle
school, I would like to chip in.
Try to get the righteous right to agree with that.
You may be more progressive than some of your counterparts but you get
judged by the people you associate with.
>
>Nonsensical comments, Greg.

Actually not. I only deal with reality.

On Wed, 18 May 2022 17:36:20 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 18 May 2022 00:33:37 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>Aren't you being a little arbitrary when you place a hard and fast
>>>>rule when it is OK to kill a baby?
>>>
>>>What hard and fast rule?
>>
>>Didn't you want to specify a number of weeks?
>>
>>>
>>>>BTW don't you folks want to shut planned parenthood down? Now you are
>>>>telling us they provide a valuable service.
>>>>It is this flip flopping that makes you seem confused.
>>>
>>>I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never
>>>said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?
>>
>>If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of your
>>comrades burn them. (google it)
>
>I don't attack PP. I may attack all the abortions they perform.

You just have to understand this is a total process. We need to try to
prevent pregnancy but once it happens there needs to be another plan.
That is why the morning after pill is called "Plan B".
Unfortunately I doubt women want to slam one of them every time they
have sex.
Levonorgestrel is not without side effects.

More common
Heavy or light menstrual bleeding
Abdominal or stomach pain
dizziness
headache
nausea
tenderness of the breasts
unusual tiredness or weakness
vomiting

Less common

Diarrhea
Absent missed or irregular menstrual periods
cramps
Irregular menstruation
Pain
Pain in the pelvis
Stopping of menstrual bleeding

How many of those would a woman want, just in case?

On Wed, 18 May 2022 17:36:49 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 18 May 2022 12:07:37 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart
><me@yourservice.com> wrote:
>
>>gfretwell@aol.com Wrote in message:r
>>> On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:05:46 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:>>Aren't you being a little arbitrary when you place a hard and fast>>rule when it is OK to kill a baby? >>What hard and fast rule?Didn't you want to specify a number of weeks? >>>BTW don't you folks want to shut planned parenthood down? Now you are>>telling us they provide a valuable service. >>It is this flip flopping that makes you seem confused.>>I know of no one who wants to shut down planned parenthood. I've never>said anything like that. So, where is the flip flopping?If you don't attack PP, you are a rare pro lifer. Some of yourcomrades burn them. (google it)
>>
>>If a woman seeks an abortion, planned parenthood failed her.
>
>Exactly. Perhaps Greg doesn't get it.

I probably get it more than you. I have seen more than my share of
abortions and shotgun weddings in my life.
Shit happens and when you are talking about young people, lots of shit
happens.

No not to me (before you ask) I was more careful than most because I
have seen the problem up close. I have never been a "baby daddy".

On Wed, 18 May 2022 17:41:19 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 18 May 2022 00:46:54 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 17 May 2022 11:11:19 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 16 May 2022 23:31:12 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 16 May 2022 23:15:15 -0000 (UTC), Bill
>>>><califbill9998remove8@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 8 May 2022 13:54:20 -0700 (PDT),
>>>>>> "waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 1:36:50 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> The point being, congress is supposed to be bending to the will of the
>>>>>>>> people but the SCOTUS only interprets the constitution and that is not
>>>>>>>> by mob rule. (no matter what the decision is all about).
>>>>>>>> Regular readers know I support the right to choose but the
>>>>>>>> constitution is actually silent on the issue and that throws it back
>>>>>>>> to the states. If you don't like the state you live in, move.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ===
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I understand and appreciate your point but it has been recognized over
>>>>>>> the years that some issues are too important to leave to the states.
>>>>>>> Some of those were written into the original constitution and some were
>>>>>>> added later as amendments. Many however have been enacted into law by
>>>>>>> congressional or administrative action. People are free to contest
>>>>>>> those actions through the legal system and that is where Roe vs Wade
>>>>>>> ended up, and was ultimately decided by the SCOTUS. That made it the
>>>>>>> law of the land and established a "legal precedent" which has
>>>>>>> traditionally carried a great deal of weight. The group of people who
>>>>>>> want to overturn Roe v. Wade are very committed to their cause and very
>>>>>>> sincere in their beliefs. They are in the minority however and seek to
>>>>>>> impose their beliefs on the majority. That's not my understanding of
>>>>>>> how democracy is supposed to work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like killing babies?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does the viable infant get a choice?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus
>>>>>> kicking, right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Your argument is for a viable baby. Not viable in the first trimester.
>>>>>Most any abortion these days is an admission of failure. What with all the
>>>>>birth control methods available.
>>>>
>>>>These late term abortions are so rare the opponents can't usually cite
>>>>a case but they want folks to think that is the norm.
>>>
>>>Yeah, 6200 dead babies are not worth mentioning. Better do some
>>>reading, Greg.
>>>
>>>https://www.liveaction.org/news/cdc-report-later-abortions-often-public-believe/
>>
>>When I read I prefer the source document, not a book report from a
>>biased writer.
>>The 2019 is out now and " (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’
>>gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at =21 weeks’ "
>>https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/index.htm
>>
>>This is not a big issue. Then you need to ask, how many were medically
>>indicated? (otherwise it is a crime just about everywhere)
>>Are we supposed to risk the life of the mother or deliver a baby with
>>a fatal birth defect that will have them suffering for a few months
>>before they die, if they are lucky.
>>Find me one documented case of a healthy mother aborting a healthy
>>child late term. Just one.
>
>Most healthy mothers aborting a healthy late term baby don't advertise
>the fact.
>
>But here, another source:
>
>"Late-term abortion is, fortunately, relatively rare. According to the
>most recent CDC data, only 1.3 percent of abortions occur after 21
>weeks. However, given the sheer number of abortions in this country
>(638,169 reported to the CDC), that means there were at least 8,000
>late-term abortions in the United States. As Jonah Goldberg notes
>today, the pro-abortion-rights Guttmacher Institute puts the number
>even higher, at roughly 12,000 late-term abortions per year. That’s a
>lot of babies dying late in pregnancy. To gain a sense of perspective,
>that number is comparable to the number of murders committed by
>firearms in the same time period."
>
>https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/truth-about-late-term-abortions/
>
>That's a lot of babies!

I see some cherry picked "facts" but what I don't see is the medical
justification for those abortions.

This is mostly hyperbole used to justify banning all abortions. If
you are falling for it, you are part of the problem.

On Wed, 18 May 2022 19:46:27 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

>>Is taking a pill a 'wise decision'? Is it more wise than having an
>>abortion?
>
>Yes it is a decision and one they have to consciously make. They need
>to go to the effort to get a prescription, come up with the $10 a
>month to pay, then remember to take the pills on time and in sync.
>If they screw up the pills, they can increase the chance of getting
>pregnant.
>That involves a conscious effort and more than a little wisdom.
>Throw a few drugs in the mix and this may be beyond their ability
>
You're suggesting that taking one morning after or two abortion pills
is a bigger decision than getting an abortion. Do you think abortions
are free? The pills may cost $100, now do some reading:

Are Abortions Free At Planned Parenthood?
Abortion is often sold as the most financially beneficial option for
women experiencing unplanned pregnancies. Because of that, we’re often
asked if abortions are free. The answer is no — abortions are not free
at Planned Parenthood or other abortion clinics. Each procedure costs
hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars depending on what stage of
pregnancy the woman is in.

>
>>>>It's not 'pro-choice', it's 'pro-death'. After all, it's only a fetus
>>>>kicking, right?
>>>
>>>I would rather kill a kicking fetus than have to kill them when they
>>>are kicking in my door.
>>
>>So all babies born to the poor will kick at your door?
>
>It is a statistical fact. Where is most of the crime and most of the
>murders?
>The "My door" part was metaphorical but it wasn't always. I lived in
>SE DC where these kind of crimes were more prevalent until I could
>afford to get out. I probably knew a lot more people in that
>socioeconomic situation than you did.
>These are not the most responsible bunch.
>
>All that said, if they would pop Norplants in those girls in middle
>school, I would like to chip in.
>Try to get the righteous right to agree with that.
>You may be more progressive than some of your counterparts but you get
>judged by the people you associate with.
>>
>>Nonsensical comments, Greg.
>
>Actually not. I only deal with reality.

I do agree that the poor should lhave fewer kids. However, the pills
work, are cheap, and require a hell of a lot less thought than a 12
week abortion.